Hon. Percy E. Downe: Senator Gold, as you know, all Canadians appreciate the countries who have sent firefighters to combat our out-of-control wildfires. However, many Canadians were surprised that this assistance arrived after Canada, as I have been advised by senior government officials, has — for the first time in the history of our country — put out an international request for help. The lack of in-country resources, and the constant underfunding of our firefighting infrastructure and our Canadian Armed Forces, is coming back to haunt us — and we are reduced to requesting help from others.

Part of the problem in our country is that the Canadian Armed Forces have a recruitment and retention problem. We are currently short 16,000 members on the recruitment side, and departures from the Canadian Armed Forces are higher than they’ve ever been. One of the retention problems that I hear about relates to medical care for the families of Canadian Armed Forces members. When members are transferred from one province to another, their medical coverage continues to be provided by the Canadian Armed Forces, but their family members go to the bottom of provincial waiting lists of thousands and thousands of names.

To improve retention, why won’t the government extend medical coverage to the families of the Canadian Armed Forces members when they are transferred?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As I just said, the government has confidence in the minister, and he will continue to serve Canada in accordance with the mandate given to him by the Prime Minister.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Thank you for the question, Senator Dupuis. You referred to Critical Mention, whose services are now used by the Senate’s communications service. What I can do is to take your request one step further to determine whether we can extend coverage of the media review to all regions of Canada. There was a challenge with access, but we can see how far we can go with this research, and then try to further accommodate all the senators from the regions.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: My question is for Senator Gold. Senator Gold, when The Globe and Mail and Global News first published information about the Beijing regime’s interference in Canadian politics, Minister Mendicino denied it. When we learned that Michael Chong and other MPs had been directly targeted by the Chinese regime, Minister Mendicino denied it at first, and then blamed the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Michael Chong.

After it became clear that David Johnston was so closely linked to the Trudeau family and to China that he could not do his job, the minister continued to defend him. The rest is history.

Senator Gold, it’s obvious that this minister no longer belongs within the Privy Council. When will the Prime Minister relegate him to the back benches?

Hon. Renée Dupuis: My question is for the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Madam Chair, the committee decided to end its contract with the Library of Parliament for the daily media review sent to senators. I understand that a contract has been signed with Critical Mention to have this company conduct a pilot project for the same media review service for senators.

Until now, it has been impossible to include in the media review a significant number of articles from local or community media interested in the work of the Senate and senators. In the reply I have been receiving for years, I was told, among other things, that there were technical issues related to the fact that the Library of Parliament did not have the required copyright licences.

It is important for the Senate to not rely solely on the media it has traditionally consulted and to look to new information media. Now that the Senate has taken back this responsibility, can you confirm that the committee you chair will ensure that this company will reach local and community media in all regions of Canada?

Hon. Kim Pate: My question is for the Government Representative.

Canada has used provincial jails to incarcerate thousands of refugee claimants and migrants in immigration detention based solely on administrative grounds.

In 2021, the #WelcomeToCanada campaign called on Canada to end the practice of using provincial jails for immigration detention. Dozens of social justice, expert and grassroots organizations, as well as individuals with lived experience in immigration detention and hundreds of lawyers, academic scholars, health care providers and religious leaders across Canada have joined the call for provinces and the federal government to end this practice.

This year, the coroner’s inquest into the death of Abdurahman Hassan, a refugee from Somalia, brought to light shocking details about Canada’s immigration detention system and abusive conditions in provincial jails. The jury’s first recommendation called on Ontario to end the use of provincial jails for immigration detention. This Monday, the Toronto Star editorial board amplified this call.

To date, five provinces — Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba — have cancelled their respective immigration detention contracts with the Canada Border Services Agency.

When will the Government of Canada put an end to the practice of detaining migrants and asylum seekers on solely administrative immigration grounds in provincial jails across the rest of the country?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, senator. Colleagues, administration detention is a matter of last resort. The government knows well that much more needs to be done. It’s for that reason I’m advised that, through the National Immigration Detention Framework, the government is doing several things to address this important issue: One, it is introducing a ministerial directive to stop the housing of minors; two, importantly, it is expanding health services and overall conditions in immigration holding centres and, also importantly, reducing reliance on provincial facilities.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for your suggestions. As all members of the chamber know, and as all Canadians know, discussions are under way between the leaders of the opposition parties and the government with regard to the mandate for a public process, as well as the determination of what the public process should be, how it should be structured and, of course, who might lead that process. The Government of Canada is encouraged that the members of the opposition are working together. My understanding is that bilateral meetings are taking place, or are scheduled to take place, between the leaders of the two major parties — and it is the hope of the Government of Canada that we will soon have a consensus emerge amongst the parties in the other place so that the work can continue.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): No, the answer is neither one nor the other, senator. You continue to assert that there are police stations operating in our home province without any basis for saying that — other than media reports. There may very well be; they are the subject of an ongoing RCMP investigation, as I’ve said on many occasions, and I will continue to remind the Senate of that each and every time you raise the question.

I’m not impatient, but that’s the answer, and that’s the answer that I will continue to give until such time as the results of the investigation are made public.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Let me take a moment to start with the positive, and recognize that the people of Canada have just sent $500 million to the Ukrainian military efforts, as announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when in Kyiv this past weekend. My question is about foreign interference on our end in Canada, and I want to return to a question that I asked a couple of weeks ago when the Right Honourable David Johnston put out his report. I would like to suggest that there be a third option that would combine some of the ideas that he put forward, as well as other ideas that people have raised.

Taking the ideas of his that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, would review all of the materials that he looked at, there should also be a national public inquiry — and NSICOP and NSIRA should be involved throughout that process to review materials that would not be made public during the process. I would assume that during a public inquiry of this kind, there are various materials that will be public, and various parts that will be in camera, and I think there’s an important role that NSIRA can play in reviewing that material. What are the government’s views on actually having a public inquiry at this point?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, and for making the important link between the important work that the Canadian Armed Forces do in so many areas and, in particular, the work that they’re doing here to help us deal with historically high levels of devastating wildfires.

The Government of Canada is aware that it has a challenge with both recruitment and retention. It’s been addressed in this chamber on previous occasions, and it’s a matter that is actively being considered. That would include all measures in order to both attract and retain those in the Canadian Armed Forces, or as they change locations within the country.

With regard to your question, I will certainly bring that to the attention of the relevant minister.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Government leader, the government’s answer to my colleagues Senator Plett’s and Senator Boisvenu’s question regarding the competence of Minister Mendicino is shameful. Government leader, this is the truth of the matter: The problem isn’t that Minister Mendicino didn’t announce that Paul Bernardo was being transferred — the problem is that he played dumb once it was made public, and he acted like it was the first time he had ever heard about it. That’s the problem with Minister Mendicino.

It seems to be the default setting of Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Mendicino to play dumb every time they get called out — just as the minister was called out many weeks ago regarding his statement that all illegal police stations in Canada had been shut down, and then a few days later, we find out there are a couple of police stations still operating in our own hometown. The minister played dumb again, and, worse than that, he blamed the RCMP.

My question is very simple, government leader: Is Minister Mendicino playing dumb, or is it possible that he’s genuinely this incompetent?

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Carignan, you have 17 seconds.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, this week we will be paying tribute to the Senate pages who will be leaving us this summer.

Laura Boyd will be continuing her studies in biology at Carleton University in the fall, where she will enter her third year. Laura is grateful for the two years she spent representing Manitoba in the Senate as a page and feels privileged to have worked during so many historic moments. She would like to thank all those who made the experience so unforgettable, and she is appreciative of those she was able to learn from.

Thank you, Laura.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Leader, I have tracked down more than 11 statements in which Minister Mendicino told the Canadian public that he invoked the Emergencies Act on the advice and at the request of law enforcement.

For example, on February 28, 2022, during question period in the House of Commons, he said, “. . . we had to invoke the Emergencies Act, and we did so on the basis of non-partisan, professional advice from law enforcement.” He also stated, on May 3, 2022, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement.” On April 26, 2022, at the joint committee, he said the same thing. However, the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police said the following:

I can tell you that I am telling you the absolute truth, sir. At no point did I provide or request that the Emergencies Act be invoked.

RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki wrote the same thing. The commissioner wrote that she felt the police had not yet exhausted all the tools at their disposal. The former Ottawa police chief said they had never sought recourse.

The former chief superintendent of the Ontario Provincial Police said the same.

I have run out of things to say about Minister Mendicino’s contradictory messages. I don’t necessarily want to use the same words as Senator Housakos. Is this a case of incompetence? Has the minister really lied to the public so many times?

Either this is starting to look like bad faith, or the minister has lied. Shouldn’t he resign?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The answer is no. First, when it comes to invoking the Emergencies Act, the report clearly stated that it was entirely justified. It is also true that the government made this decision based on a whole array of information from various sources, including information about the inability of police forces and others to manage a situation that was out of control, especially here in Ottawa.

I think that is the gist of the statements from Minister Mendicino that you cited.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-246, An Act respecting Lebanese Heritage Month, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Tareq Winski is honoured to have had the opportunity to represent the province of British Columbia within the Senate Page Program for the past two years. Tareq will be beginning his third year of international management at the University of Ottawa and hopes to attend law school in the future. The Senate has provided him with memories and experiences he will forever treasure. Tareq extends his sincere thanks for this extraordinary opportunity and wishes to thank the Usher of the Black Rod, his dedicated page colleagues and the esteemed senators, whose support and guidance have been instrumental in making this journey so rewarding.

Thank you, Tareq.

The Hon. the Speaker: I have heard enough arguments, and I would like to remind you that former Speaker Furey handed down a ruling on this subject on May 2. I suggest that you reread it.

I will read it to remind you of the rule that applies. I believe we are intelligent enough to interpret it.

[English]

Unparliamentary language

6-13. (1) All personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.

6-13. (2) When a Senator is called to order for unparliamentary language, any Senator may demand that the words be taken down in writing by the Clerk.

6-13. (3) A Senator who has used unparliamentary words and who does not explain or retract them or offer an apology acceptable to the Senate shall be disciplined as the Senate may determine.

We must remind ourselves what unparliamentary language is.

[Translation]