Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining again — it can never be too often — the plight of the Uighurs and the oppression of which they are victims.

I don’t know what steps are being taken, and I will have to make inquiries and report back.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, today I am pleased to present chapter 62 of “Telling Our Story.” The iconic Ford Mustang car was officially unveiled by Henry Ford II at the world’s fair in Flushing Meadows, New York, on April 17, 1964. That same day, the new and extremely popular car was also debuted in Ford showrooms across North America. Prior to the Mustang actually going on sale, and in order for all showrooms to have at least one Mustang for the official sales launch, Ford sent cars to its dealerships that were farthest away. The cars were intended strictly for display purposes.

George G.R. Parsons Ford in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, received the very first Mustang ever built: a white convertible with serial number 5F08F100001. The new, sporty‑looking vehicle that the Ford vice president and general manager Lee Iacocca had envisioned in the 1960s was finally a reality and was creating plenty of excitement.

Captain Stanley Tucker, an Eastern Provincial Airways pilot, was driving by the Ford dealership on April 14, just three days before the official launch, when he saw what he later called “a huge fuss” outside in the parking lot. He decided to go in and see for himself what the fuss was all about. When he saw the Mustang, he instantly fell in love with the car and wanted to buy it immediately. He approached salesman Harry Phillips and told him so.

Harry said there was nothing like the Ford Mustang on the market. It was a beautiful car, but told Captain Tucker that he could not sell the car for another two weeks. Phillips said that Tucker was determined to be the owner of the Ford Mustang convertible and said to the salesman, “I don’t care, I wants it.”

He had to have that car, so the two of them worked out an agreement. No one knows exactly what Tucker said to convince the dealership to sell him the car but they did, and for three days he was the only person in the world who owned a Ford Mustang.

Tucker purchased the car for $4,300 and sealed the deal just 72 hours before Henry Ford would officially unveil the Mustang. Captain Tucker agreed to let the dealership keep and display the car for a couple of weeks.

A few weeks following the sale, the St. John’s dealership received a call from Ford’s head office in Michigan looking for the car, because it was a pre-production model and was never meant to be sold. When they were told that the very first Mustang that they had built was sold and being driven around the roads in Newfoundland, Ford set out to get the car back. “Not so fast,” said Captain Tucker. He told Ford, “I’m sorry, you’ve cashed my cheque . . . and I’m very happy with it.” He refused to give the car back.

It took Ford two years and 10,000 miles later to negotiate with Tucker to get the car back. Tucker finally gave in to Ford and drove the car to Michigan. In exchange for the first Mustang ever built, Ford gave Captain Tucker a brand new 1966 “Silver Frost” model with all the bells and whistles, which happened to be the one-millionth Mustang to roll off the assembly line.

Lee Iacocca presented Tucker with the keys to his new car, and the original car was donated to the Henry Ford museum where it remains on display to this day, complete with its Newfoundland and Labrador licence plate.

Salesman Harry Phillips made a career of selling cars and retired in 1995, having never seen the Mustang he mistakenly sold in 1964 again. In 2019, 55 years after Phillips sold the car, his granddaughter Stephanie Mealey started a social media campaign titled “Send Harry to Henry.” Matt Anderson, curator of the Ford museum, discovered the social media campaign and made arrangements for the salesman, his daughter and his granddaughter to travel to Michigan and receive a VIP tour of the museum in addition to a tour of the Rouge plant where the iconic and historic Mustang was built. Harry Phillips had never had the opportunity to visit Detroit before, and was overwhelmed when he was able to see the car that he accidentally sold so many years ago.

Captain Tucker passed away in 2008 and never had the same opportunity as Harry Phillips, but, because of his perseverance in making sure he got to buy the first Mustang ever built, he unknowingly created another bit of history for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): I have a few points to make. The first point is in response to Senator Plett’s and Senator Housakos’ comments that this question of privilege is not based on the article. I would just like to quote the letter from the Honourable Scott Tannas to Gérald Lafrenière, Interim Clerk of the Senate.

[English]

The letter reads:

The timing and content of an article in the Globe and Mail on September 27, 2022, entitled “Critic of Bill C-11 should be investigated for failing to disclose funding from YouTube, say Liberal MP” may constitute intimidation of a witness appearing before a Senate Committee.

So that is at the heart of the matter.

Another point I would like to make is that I would like to put on the record, as it is somewhat germane to the present debate, that the Speaker in the other place has ruled against the point of order raised in relation to this issue. In so ruling, the Speaker said the following:

[Translation]

 . . . the Chair has reviewed the facts submitted that are within its purview. It is not immediately apparent that the conduct in question was intended as an attempt to intimidate the witness or an act of reprisal for his appearances before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The Chair would also remind members of the importance of choosing their words carefully when discussing the conduct of other members.

Nevertheless, I hope that the Speaker of the Senate will take this into account when he comes back to us with an answer.

[English]

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, Treaty Day, which is held annually on October 1, is the start of Mi’kmaq History Month. It is a time to learn more about the history, culture and contributions of the Mi’kmaq. It is also a time to commemorate the significance of the Peace and Friendship Treaties signed in the 1700s.

These legally binding agreements act as the foundation for the ongoing relationship between the Mi’kmaq and the Crown. We are all treaty people and, therefore, responsible for upholding the range of rights, benefits and obligations that our ancestors committed to.

Colleagues, the Mi’kmaq never surrendered or ceded our lands, waters and resources when we entered into these treaties, but we agreed to share them with settlers and still continue to do so. In contrast, the Crown has not honoured its promise not to interfere in our traditional ways of life.

Instead, it has tried to forcibly displace and assimilate many generations. As a result, the relationship between the Crown and the Mi’kmaq over the centuries cannot be characterized by peace and friendship. Instead, it is one of exploitation and violence, but also of struggle and resistance.

To give you an example, in recent years various Mi’kmaq First Nations have launched their own rights-based fisheries without federal approval. Lennox Island First Nation, where I was born, did so last May. After an interim understanding was reached with the federal government, the first season was deemed successful; however, there was pushback on how many traps and where to place them.

Last month I was also impressed by how Elsipogtog and Esgenoopetitj are working to assert their constitutionally protected rights to fish. The failure of various governments to not fully implement this right has hindered socioeconomic development in the communities and left members vulnerable to further harassment and violence from state and other actors.

The withholding of federal funds tied to a 2019 agreement is also undermining the ability of Esgenoopetitj and Elsipogtog to fish as safely and sustainably as possible. It is shameful that Canada is reneging on the treaties and other agreements. The full implementation of the Mi’kmaq rights-based fisheries is long overdue.

Colleagues, I hope everyone in Mi’kma’ki and beyond will take time in October to learn about and take action to realize the many treaty promises that remain unfulfilled.

Wela’lin. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Honourable colleagues, in August, the medical journal The Lancet published the results of a very large study on cancer risk factors around the world. This vast study confirmed the known causal relationship between obesity and cancer.

[English]

If we narrow it down to Canadian kids, 30% of children aged 5 to 17 are obese or overweight. The last ParticipACTION Children and Youth Report Card was far from reassuring. Canadian children received a D+ grade for overall physical activity, D+ for sedentary behaviour, B for sleep and F for overall 24-hour movement behaviour.

As parents and grandparents, we would be alarmed by such grades for our children at school, so why should we be fine with it when it comes to health and physical activities, and what do we do about it? To be fair, our country has taken some action.

[Translation]

Canada’s healthy eating strategy is gaining ground. The 2019 food guide was very well received. Nutritional information on food labels is helping Canadians make informed choices. Industrial trans fats are now prohibited. But is that enough? Evidently not, given the troubling levels of obesity and sedentary behaviour among our youth.

Faced with this alarming situation, we have to take ambitious action. Consider European countries where people are less sedentary. For example, in Iceland, almost 30% of the population and almost 80% of all 12-year-old children are members of sports clubs. Many countries have understood that physical activity is truly beneficial when coupled with healthy eating habits.

[English]

They have put in place measures to restrict food advertising to children based on nutrient criteria, usually linked to a food’s sodium, sugar and saturated fat content. Many other countries are considering similar measures.

[Translation]

Here in Canada, I salute Patricia Lattanzio for introducing a bill in the House of Commons to restrict the marketing of certain foods and beverages to children. She is giving us an opportunity to support parents who are trying to make healthier food choices for their children.

As I wait for us to do our part, I will conclude my remarks by thanking all the organizations, such as ParticipAction, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Weight Coalition, that believe, as I do, that it is essential for us to halt the rise in child obesity and reverse the trend. We must aim high, because our children deserve it.

Thank you.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to this question of privilege with some trepidation. I don’t mean to belittle the seriousness of the concern raised by Senator Tannas, but my brother is a retired golf pro at a golf club. He describes everything in terms of how big or small a handicap anybody has. Higher numbers are worse. When it comes to questions of parliamentary privilege, I am about a 30 handicap, and I apologize for my limited knowledge on that point.

Nevertheless, I do think there are some issues that are worthy of consideration by the Speaker here, and I would like to refer to them ever so briefly.

I agree, in particular, with the observation that Senator Lankin made about the importance of dignity and decorum in the Senate and in Senate committees, and let me share with you my own personal learning experience on that.

In the debates in the committee and the questioning of witnesses during the consideration of medical assistance in dying, there was a stretch of time when I was fairly aggressive with respect to a witness. Senator Plett upbraided me for my conduct. I was troubled by that, but on reflection concluded that he was right, and I had, at least, overreached. He didn’t bring the matter here, but he provided an opportunity for me to learn the point that Senator Lankin made. I don’t always agree with Senator Plett, but I appreciated that assistance and intervention. I think it’s fundamental for us to think in those terms, and in that respect, Senator Tannas’s angst about this — if I could call it that — is not ill placed.

There are two concerns I think you have here, Your Honour. One is the point Senator Lankin made, which is a lack of evidence, and, quite frankly, based on the nature of the complaint, in my view, it is inaccessible to you because it would require you to be able to dig into the question of that story and how it came about. Who knows? The allegations of deviousness here might be legitimate, but there is actually no way to know. The first question, I think, is evidence.

The second point is jurisdiction. Much of the concern that’s expressed here — and I don’t mean to diminish it, but much of it is rhetoric — focuses on the way in which some people behaved in the other place. I think that is beyond your jurisdiction.

The second problem with jurisdiction is exactly the point that was raised with respect to Senator Tannas’s letter, and if I can take a second to call it up — I don’t quite have the research resources of others — the language of the complaint is that “the timing and content of an article may constitute intimidation of a witness.” It is with respect to this issue of what the press did that could intimidate a witness.

With the greatest respect, wandering into that field invites you to reflect on what I will call the privileges of the press vis-à-vis the Senate, and I would be, with respect, very uncomfortable going there to chastise The Globe and Mail for having published this article as a compromise of how we do our business in the Senate.

Indeed, on reflection, it might invite you to read every newspaper every morning to see if somebody has written something that could be conceived as intimidating a witness at some committee, and, ultimately, quite frankly, that would only be speculation.

Thank you.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on the occasion of the fifth annual Latin American Heritage Month.

Canada’s Latin American community is thriving and growing in numbers and influence every year. I am very proud to be part of this determined, resourceful and resilient community. I am also thrilled by the accomplishments that members of our community are making in so many areas. This is a community with a big heart, where love, solidarity and collaboration abound.

[English]

I would like to recognize and thank personally the ambassadors of Latin American countries who have been working diligently to reinforce the links between Canada and their respective nations. They are here today in the gallery. I also want to thank the Speaker and the Usher of the Black Rod for their hospitality in our Senate Chamber.

Later today, we will be celebrating Hispanic Day on the Hill with a reception from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Sir John A. MacDonald Building. The embassies have generously contributed traditional food and beverages along with artistic and music shows. I invite you all, dear colleagues, to come and experience the vibrant Latin American culture.

[Translation]

Thanks to the embassies and multiple Latin American organizations in Canada, throughout the month of October, events will be taking place across the country to celebrate our art, cuisine, music, film, literature and more.

[English]

I encourage my honourable colleagues to seek out and participate in the events that will take place near your home province. The Latin American community is very welcoming and would love to share its richness and vivacity with you. In this month of October, I wish everyone a happy Latin American Heritage Month.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Galvez spoke in Spanish.]

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada‑Europe Parliamentary Association concerning the Meeting with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Third Part of the 2022 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held in Strasbourg, France, from June 20 to 24, 2022.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, last week I could not help but be reminded of a department that the Trudeau government put together when it first came to power named the Results and Delivery Unit, which was based on the “deliverology” approach. Your government said it was adamant on keeping focused on its priorities and delivering what was promised to Canadians.

I was reminded of this thanks to an answer that you gave in this chamber last week to a question posed by my colleague Senator Martin on reconciliation efforts. You said:

This government has begun the work. In the tradition that I am part of and I’m proud to embrace, it is said that we are not obligated —

— this is interesting —

— to finish the work, but we are not permitted not to start it. This government has started it.

Leader, is that what your government meant by “deliverology” back in 2015, that it was not obligated to finish the work it started? Senator Gold, without shaking your head, please answer the question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Plett, thank you for the question. I was referring to an important teaching in the Jewish tradition that imposes upon all of us the responsibility to do what we can to make this world a better place. All of us here in the chamber, having agreed and been summoned here, would agree that that is what we are here for in our small, modest ways.

With regard to your question, I stand by my answer. The Government of Canada, this government — unlike any other government before — is taking seriously the work with Indigenous communities across this country to begin the process of confronting the truth of our history and doing what is necessary so that we can reconcile ourselves with our Indigenous citizens and with our history.

In that regard, the amount of work that has been done, though difficult, is impressive. There is a great deal to be done, and Minister Miller and the whole of government are to be congratulated for the seriousness with which they are approaching this work and the respect they are giving our Indigenous colleagues and partners in the co-development of the initiatives.

Senator Gold: The government is committed to doing what it has set out to do to improve the lives of Canadians, as it has helped us get through a worldwide crisis, the effects of which we are still feeling. This is about concrete action to help Canadians. It is not about appearances or scoring partisan points.

Senator Plett: The answer was a very direct answer to a very direct question. Senator Gold, your response from last week, in fact, rings truer than your government’s “deliverology” mandate at the start of its term.

This Trudeau government has a long track record of broken promises to Canadians, which are brought up week after week in this chamber: electoral reform, fixing the housing crisis, clean drinking water for Indigenous reserves, planting 2 billion trees and the budget that was supposed to balance itself. I can go on and on, leader. These are all promises that your government has not delivered on.

Leader, did your government ever have the intention to fulfill these promises; and, if so, when? Or was it always more about appearances, as it often seems to be with this government?

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, with all due respect, this is a very important issue when it comes to freedom of democracy and dealing with human rights. Recently, we saw 30,000 Canadians get together in solidarity for freedom and in solidarity for what the people in Iran are going through. Given how important this issue has been over the last few weeks, you as government leader should have an answer to this simple question: What due diligence has the government undertaken to make sure that any individual who is linked to the IRGC, or to this regime in Iran, does not get entry into our country?

I don’t think that is a very difficult question, but I’ll leave that one with you. And I’ll ask a second one which is a lot simpler, but again we’ve received no answer.

After all these years — after both chambers of Parliament have demanded that your government add the IRGC to the list of terrorist organizations — why does the Trudeau government refuse to? Explain that one. That’s an easy one. It’s been a long time that we’ve been asking.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The minister and the department are working hard to address what is a very difficult situation for too many Canadians who are facing uncomfortable and stressful waits. The government is very aware of the burden that this imposes on Canadians who want to travel. It is seeking to do — and has done — many things to tackle these challenges.

There is a triage system in place in our larger communities, such as the Vancouver area — where you’re from, senator — the GTA, Calgary and Edmonton, to help people be served more expeditiously. Officials continue to look for solutions to what is a very troubling and difficult situation for far too many Canadians.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my next question is maybe somewhat of a supplementary to what Senator Housakos already spoke about.

Last week, you will recall that I asked you twice about your government’s reluctance to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, as a terrorist organization. In your answer, you spoke about the separation of powers, implying that it is not your government’s responsibility to decide whether to designate or not to designate — a bizarre response considering that the decision on whether to list an organization as a terrorist entity is taken entirely within the executive branch.

In fact, in 2018, the House government leader’s parliamentary secretary at the time outlined the process for listing the IRGC under the Criminal Code. A criminal or security intelligence report is drafted which documents the entity’s activities. The report is then reviewed by an independent council at the Department of Justice to ensure that the entity meets the legal threshold for listing. If the Minister of Public Safety agrees that this is the test that is to be met, he may make a recommendation to cabinet that the entity be listed.

Leader, the procedure is clear, so is it that your government can’t list the IRGC or that it won’t? Which begs the same question I asked you last week, leader: why?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I certainly did not intend to say that the government had no responsibility for the ultimate decision in the process that you described. So if you said my answer implied that, I think that was certainly not my intent.

But if I recall, your question also touched upon the role of security agencies that are seized with the responsibility to advise and make recommendations as part of an appropriate process to make sure that decisions of this nature are made intelligently and appropriately.

In that regard, the government remains focused on what further steps it might take to enhance the sanctions and the pressure on Iran, its agencies and its instruments to condemn and further underline our condemnation of the actions against their citizens and against our values abroad.

Senator Gold: Senator, you know from your own political experience and your experience in government that I’m not at liberty to disclose what advice or reports were issued to cabinet. I simply stand by the answer that I have already given on a number of occasions to this question.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is again for the government leader in the Senate and it has to do with “JustinFlation.” I have asked about this issue on a number of occasions, and it is an issue that is starting to destroy average middle-class and poor Canadians who are struggling to survive.

I’ll ask the question a little bit differently because in the past I’ve tried to hold this government responsible for some of the things they have done, and, of course, this government never takes responsibility. It’s market forces, international conditions, wars — it’s any other reason but the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Trudeau or his two finance ministers over the last seven years.

Will you agree that, with three small steps, we can solve “JustinFlation”? Number one, will you agree that this government should cap the Liberal government’s spending and taxation of the middle class with the Employment Insurance, or EI, taxes that are being implemented as of January?

Second, cap the Liberal government runaway deficit right now?

The third step, very importantly, unleash the energy sector in this country to produce energy that Canadians badly need to heat their homes, that farmers need in order to fuel their tractors and produce more food and, of course, that the rest of the world is so thirsty for because right now they’re under the grip of a bunch of dictatorships like Russia, Iran and I can go through the list.

Do you agree with those three simple steps the government can take in order to give middle-class Canadians, and those working hard to join the middle class, some relief?