Senator Housakos: Your Honour, at some point, Question Period here has to be the opposition asking questions and the government making some feeble attempt to provide an answer.

At the end of the day, government leader, you constantly diminish the questions we ask, but they’re questions that are being asked on behalf of Canadians.

Last week, I took the time to visit a bunch of families with autistic children and a bunch of families who are going to and relying on food banks in order to feed their children and families. They do not live in the same context and bubble as we do in this place and in this town. This government has to first acknowledge there is a problem with inflation and, second, take steps to resolve the problem — rather than continue to print money and continue to add to the deficit, thinking that’s some kind of solution. I think Canadians deserve an answer, government leader.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the government leader as well. Life is returning to normal after the COVID pandemic. Children are back at school. People are back at work. Canadians are travelling again — well, they would be if they could get their passports, that is.

Canadians are facing these unprecedented backlogs at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, to get their passports so they can travel. Miscommunication and contradictory information from Service Canada have only exacerbated the problem. Senator Gold, when will the minister responsible apologize to Canadians and clear the backlog?

Senator Gold: I will do my best to get the answers as quickly as I can.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. As I’ve answered in this chamber before, the government has listed a number of entities attached to the regime and individuals — and, indeed, most recently, the government has added more to the list and is constantly reviewing how to proceed further. The government condemns the actions of Iran against its own citizens and the actions of Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.

If I may respond to the preamble to your second question: Of course, these are serious questions. Of course, they’re important questions. But the fact that I don’t have, at my fingertips, the answer to what due diligence has been taken with regard to specific attempts, such as there may be, to enter this country, and the fact that I undertake to try to find an answer that can be shared, without compromising national security, is something that I hope senators will understand is the best that I can do. That is in no way to diminish or minimize the importance of the question.

Senator Petitclerc: When a new team takes over at Hockey Canada, can the government commit to ensuring that outside experts are brought in to identify and implement concrete solutions to address sexual abuse and violence? Those individuals will also need to ensure that there is a trust mechanism in place so that victims have adequate resources to have their complaints heard.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I do not have any details about plans for creating a new team. However, I will pass on those suggestions to the government and the minister for their consideration.

Senator Gold: Having participated as a witness to those events, I couldn’t agree with you more about how important they are to the members and their families.

The government is working to be in a position to make all services available — as they once were before the pandemic — and will continue to do so. When changes to the system can be introduced, the announcements will be forthcoming.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of ambassadors and representatives of Latin American embassies, in honour of Latin American Heritage Month. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Galvez.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Jane Cordy: I would also like to ask a question of Senator Mockler. It’s a pretty easy one. Would you agree that the legacy of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver continues in part because of the excellent wood structures that were built for the games? Those who got to use these buildings during the Olympics and those who continue to use the structures today underscore that the Olympians and Paralympians shared the stage with the creativity of the forest industry in Canada.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Senator Gold, the National Finance Committee had a very interesting meeting this morning with the Auditor General. She told us that she signed off on the Public Accounts for the last fiscal year. Last year we waited nine months for the Public Accounts. In fact, we did not get them until the day we adjourned for the Christmas break. Since she signed off on the Public Accounts already, when will the government release the 2022 Public Accounts?

Senator Omidvar: Senator Cordy, maybe I missed it in Senator Klyne’s speech. Which committee does the sponsor want this bill to go to for study?

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Will the senator take a question?

Senator Mockler: I will say yes.

Senator Mockler: Yes.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Tannas for bringing this forward, and I want to thank all of the speakers. There have been some very eloquent arguments put forward.

At the basis of this, though, as Senator Gagné pointed out, the actual wording of the letter appears to say that it’s the timing and content of the article in The Globe and Mail that may constitute intimidation of a witness. I’m willing to read into that what Senator Tannas has argued before us, but technically the letter is something very different than what we’re talking about here.

I have heard no proof that the parliamentary secretary or, as Senator Tannas said, the second member of Parliament who was aware of the complaint to the Commissioner of Lobbying provided any information to The Globe and Mail. It doesn’t matter how many times a senator opposite asserts that; that does not make it true and that does not provide evidence.

I could assert that those who are opposed to this bill, who have been part of a campaign of writing tons and tons of letters and who work closely with certain parliamentarians, decided that this was a way to discredit the government by bringing forward the fact that this Commissioner of Lobbying complaint had been filed.

I could assert that. I have no evidence of that. I have no evidence that the chair of the committee, who created the time and space to ask the questions of the witness and bring it forward, did that for any other reason. I have no basis and no evidence to suggest that the chair of the committee, who is very familiar with the Rules of the Senate and knows his way around these things, didn’t do that or did do that. I have no evidence. I’m saying to you there is no evidence to proceed.

Is it a serious issue? If true, would it be serious? It’s very serious. There is no evidence.

I also want to say that the fact that there is aggressive — and I agree with the words — sometimes bullying questions of witnesses is something that should be seen as abhorrent. It should be seen as egregious in that chamber as well as in this chamber and in our committees. I have seen and participated and heard and talked to senators afterwards about their way of dismissing opinions of witnesses that come before us. That in and of itself is a matter that I think we should be very clear about: that, as a collegial institution, we will not support or allow that to continue, but it is not evidence of what is being alleged here.

I believe you don’t have the grounds for a prima facie case on this, and I’ll leave it at that. Thank you very much.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, did you wish to speak before Senator Tannas?

Senator Cordy: Of course.