Senator Dawson: I did criticize the fact that we were thrown out of caucus in 2014. I actually mentioned it to the Prime Minister last night in a very impolite way — well, a polite way, but not respectful of the fact that he is the Prime Minister and I’m close to being a former senator. However, I did feel that I understand why it was done, but the follow-up and follow through and how — I remember when I arrived when the new independent senators had six independent senators and three government representatives. Now we have 55 independent senators, and we still have three government representatives. The work they have to do to handle all these committees and all these members just means that the PMO and the government have not understood that they also have to adapt for the fact that —

[Translation]

 — when you bring someone into the world, maybe you should listen to them.

[English]

So, when you give birth to someone, which is the independent senate, you have to listen to what the Senate is saying. The senators are saying, “You have to modernize the rules. You have to help us make this a better place.” It took six years for the Parliament of Canada Act to be changed. I’m very happy for you, but the only thing it meant is that you’re getting money. For the rest, the rules were not changed. It just means they are respecting the fact that if you have a mandate, then that mandate should be recognized. Apart from that, a lot of modernization has to be done. However, if you want to go to the PMO and ask them who will do it, there is nobody in that office mandated to deal with the Senate. I think that’s wrong.

Anyway, there are a lot of things about the reform I would like to get into, but I’ll just jump over those points. I could talk about the appointment process — I think Paul Martin had a good one, and I certainly can’t contest his judgment.

When I was thrown out of caucus in 2014, I really did feel like I should leave. I had a Liberal career, and I believed — and still believe — in partisan politics. I didn’t leave because, after that, we basically recreated the Progressive Senate Group.

I’m looking at the clerks, the Speaker and all the people who have worked in the Senate for the few years I’ve been working on the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee — I have learned to admire the work they do. It has been a very challenging and interesting experience for me. That’s one of the things I will miss; the Long Term Vision and Plan Subcommittee, the Joint Interparliamentary Council — I will miss those things. There are a lot of things I won’t miss, but I will miss those. I want to thank the people who supported us. I’m looking at Gérald, whom I have known for a long time — I will miss you too, but I will miss these people who are in front of us.

The only thing that was left was the timing of my departure; a lot of things happened. I joked about the fact that there were no more — I had to come back here all the time because they have hybrid sittings in the other place. I don’t understand why they can have hybrid sittings and we can’t; I don’t even understand why they have hybrid sittings. I was there for many years. I was always proud to sit in the House of Commons — I would rather sit in the House of Commons than be on a Zoom committee. They made their decisions.

[Translation]

This isn’t the time to go on and on, but I do know that, throughout my years in Canada’s Parliament, I truly believed I was always serving the interests of our country and our fellow citizens.

[English]

I am proud of my years as a senator. Those years have been wonderful in spite of a few bad curves. I wish the best of luck to those of you who will continue to be part of this institution, but it is time for me to go home to my wife, my family and — yes, I will repeat — to my daughter. I’m quite proud; I am anything but bragging. I am humbled by what I have heard here today. I think I have tried to live up to the fact that Paul Martin named me. My problem now is to try to live up to everything that was said.

[Translation]

Once again, I want to thank the people who gave me the opportunity to play an active role in making Canada one of the best countries in the world. I did so humbly but with great conviction and determination. Canada is still the best country in the world.

[English]

Thank you. I will be back every once in a while, but as a tourist.

Senator Plett: It is amazing how this Prime Minister always looks into issues after he has messed them up, then he has people looking into it.

For almost two years, leader, since March 2021, I have had written questions on the Senate’s Order Paper asking for information regarding the vetting process for Mr. Dominic Barton’s appointment as the Chair of the Trudeau government’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth. Mr. Barton is a former top executive with McKinsey and the Trudeau government’s former ambassador to China. The Prime Minister has publicly called him a friend, despite whatever he says now.

As well, for over two years, since December 2020, I have had a question on the Senate’s Order Paper asking the Trudeau government to provide information on how much it paid all consultants in relation to its COVID-19 response program.

Leader, neither of these questions has been answered. At this point, it’s clear your government doesn’t ever want to answer them. Why is that, leader? Why is your government hiding this information?

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader in the Senate. Government leader, yesterday, I asked you a question in regard to the Trudeau government’s censorship bill, Bill C-11, and the fact that Minister Rodriguez sent a letter to the chair of the CRTC — a chair he appointed — asking her to make sure she takes into consideration the rights and freedoms of Canadians when implementing Bill C-11. Your response yesterday, government leader, was the following:

. . . it’s the responsible thing for any government to ensure that those who are charged with enforcing the law — once this law does come into force — understand their obligations to respect our fundamental freedoms as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The question is the following, government leader: Why does Minister Rodriguez have to write a letter to the chair of the CRTC when the bill is still before Parliament and he can write into that bill his exact wishes in black and white, so that regardless of who the chair of the CRTC is, there will be no ambiguity and neither Prime Minister Trudeau nor any other government will have the right to tell Canadians what to watch or post on the internet?

Senator Housakos: Government leader, you have to admit, it’s highly unusual for a minister of the Crown to feel compelled to write a letter to the chair of the CRTC asking her to respect Canadians’ rights and freedoms in regard to a law that hasn’t even gotten out of the door of the House of Commons. Clearly, even the minister himself felt compelled to have to do that. That in itself should raise some questions.

Senator Gold, yesterday, I asked you about the taxpayer-funded CBC announcing plans to move its operations entirely online. Senator Gold, the CBC can, to use your words, “speculate” and “anticipate” all it wants about the future but receives funding now to provide a service now to all Canadians in all regions.

My question is a simple one and one that we should all want an answer to: Would the aforementioned minister responsible be willing to write another letter in his nifty letter-writing campaign to the CRTC chair to ask her to guarantee that CBC funds are being used properly in alignment with their licensing obligations, or is it a one-letter-a-week policy by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the CRTC?

Senator Gold: The role of the CBC is an important one in this country, despite the constant attacks, which, I gather, did not date from just yesterday from the opposition. It’s a serious role. I’m going to try to answer in a serious way.

The CBC provides an essential and important service to Canadians, has done so in the past, continues to do so in the present and, for many Canadians, will continue to do so in the future.

It is an institution that has helped bind our country together. Reasonable people can disagree about whether market forces alone should govern broadcasting in Canada. I know there is quite a difference of opinion within this chamber, and I respect that in a democracy.

But the denigration of the contribution that the CBC makes to Canada as a whole, and that Radio-Canada makes to our Province of Quebec and to francophones outside of Quebec in giving them the ability to have a voice and a vehicle and a platform for the expression of identity and culture, is what makes this country distinctive and without which this country would not be the great country that we so properly celebrate here.

I would ask colleagues to take a moment before trotting out, dare I say — I apologize if that was disrespectful — the ideologically driven talking points that have less to do with the reality of what the CBC and our public broadcasting does for the benefit of Canadians, and think about the quality of life that has been created thanks to our national institutions, a central one of which is Radio-Canada and the CBC.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Gold, let’s shift once again to Global Affairs, and put our eyes outside our shores to the very tragic situation in Turkey and northern Syria. More than 11,000 people have now been reported to have fallen victims to the earthquake. I want to, first of all, congratulate the government, and please do convey this to them, on the quick announcement of $10 million of aid to the earthquake victims and then, shortly following that, a pledge to match the donations of Canadians who are opening their hearts, minds and wallets through the Red Cross. That’s really good news.

I met today, however coincidentally, with the Red Cross. They are here in Ottawa for International Development Week. They alerted me to the fact that getting aid to Syria is more complex, partly because of what they have been through in these long years of war and partly because we have imposed sanctions. Some of these sanctions prevent aid from getting to the people in need, almost like what is happening in Afghanistan.

I want to ask you to please make the government aware of this issue and ensure us that they will consider this as they flow their aid to Syria. Thank you.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold. I’m curious as to why the government, however, chooses to match the donations of Canadians only to the Red Cross. The Red Cross is a wonderful organization. I give to them. Many of us give to them. They deliver on the ground. But this is such a complex situation, and there are wonderful organizations such as GlobalMedic, Médecins Sans Frontières Canada and World Vision. I’m just wondering why there is this sole-source contract, if I may call it that, to the Red Cross, as opposed to a diversity of investments to deal with the problem that is so tragic. Would you look into that?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, in light of last night’s State of the Union Address, President Biden stated:

. . . I’m also announcing new standards to require all construction materials used in federal infra- — infrastructure projects to be made in America. . . . Made in America. . . . Lumber, glass, drywall, fiber-optic cable.

And on my watch, American roads, bridges, and American highways are going to be made with American products . . . .

If this comes to pass, leader, Canadian businesses and Canadian workers will be shut out by the Biden Administration. It will have an extremely negative impact on both of our countries due to the integration of our economies and supply chains.

Senator Gold, what specific actions are being taken by the Trudeau government today to counter this latest “buy America” threat?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Yes, the relationship that Canada has on trade with the United States is a long-standing one, a productive one and a mutually beneficial one, but it has never been without these tensions, regardless of who occupies the White House or who is in control of Congress. The fact is that there has been a strain of protectionism in the United States that is long-standing, and we have our own issues as well that we feel are important to protect the interests of our own consumers and our own producers.

Canada has been very successful historically in prosecuting its interest in relation to United States protectionism and we will continue to do so. This is not a punctual issue. It’s an ongoing regular part of Canada’s relationships with the United States, has been since before the State of the Union Address yesterday and will continue to be so afterwards. Our track record is pretty good at defending our interests in relation to trade with the United States, but it would be folly to assume that these issues will ever go away. And in this case, I think it’s fair to say the United States is in, yet again, a cycle of perpetual electioneering and politicking.

When we put all of those factors together, speeches are made, legislative initiatives are being contemplated and the Canadian government has been working on this for months, if not years, behind the scenes, as it typically does and has done with great success and will continue to do so.

Senator Plett: You are right, leader. The track record for Canada on working with the United States has been exceptionally good, especially under the prime ministership of Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. To a lesser extent, Jean Chrétien got along fine with Bill Clinton. It’s this Prime Minister who is having a problem with the United States, now under two different presidents. We can no longer blame the previous president; he is having problems with this one.

When the Obama administration brought forward similar Buy America provisions in a stimulus package in 2009, the previous Conservative government worked diligently to secure an exemption. Thirteen years ago, in February 2010, we signed an agreement with the U.S., and Canada was the only country in the world to obtain an exemption.

In contrast, a few days after the Prime Minister and President Biden had their first face-to-face meeting, the U.S. doubled the softwood lumber tariffs. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced plans to extend these tariffs. As well, our seed potato farmers in Prince Edward Island still cannot export to the U.S. under Trudeau’s watch. I could go on, leader.

Why has the Trudeau government failed to move quickly on trade protectionism from this Biden administration?

Senator Gold: Senator Plett, your loyalty to your former leader and nostalgia for those days are actually quite touching.

This government, like all Canadian governments, works tirelessly with its American counterparts to pursue our interests and the interests of our workers and consumers. It has been successful. This government was remarkably successful during the period of the Trump presidency, especially when that president decided to renegotiate a free trade agreement. Canada did exceptionally well.

We have a strong team, both political and in the public service, and we will continue to benefit from the strong leadership of this government in protecting Canadian interests against those who would challenge them.

[Translation]