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.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Will Senator Mockler take another question?

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. 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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Tannas for raising this very important question, and I want to thank all senators who took the time to participate in the debate. I will take the matter under advisement.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 5:09 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Appendix—Senators List

Senator Marshall: Thank you, Senator Gold, I would appreciate that. We need that information for our study of supplementary estimates this fall. When you inquire as to when we are going to get the Public Accounts, could you also inquire as to when we will get the departmental results reports? We did not get last year’s reports until this year. We need those documents together as a package. Thank you very much.

Senator Mockler: You are correct, Senator Woo, it is science-based. It is technical. I will take your question under advisement and I will send you a written response.