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.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Woo, do you have a question?

Senator Plett: Leader, in October 2018, the House of Commons was told by Ralph Goodale, parliamentary secretary at the time, that officials had begun their assessment of the IRGC to list them as a terrorist entity. Yet, just last week, we were being told — or implied — by you and Public Safety Minister Mendicino that it wasn’t a job for the government.

Which one is it? Are we supposed to believe that Department of Justice officials have been working on this report since 2018? Was a report produced, and if so, did the Minister of Public Safety or anyone make a recommendation to cabinet?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for your question. I will have to make inquiries and come back with an answer as quickly as I can.

Hon. Michèle Audette: Honourable senators, my first question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Today is an important day for thousands of families and survivors across Canada, as well as for those who have lost loved ones. We are marking Sisters in Spirit Day. I would like to thank my colleagues who have decided to participate.

I have a duty of responsibility towards these families, as well as a great deal of love for them. They campaigned for over 50 years for the creation of a national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and Canada finally ordered the launch of this inquiry. The inquiry produced many reports and recommendations, of course, as well as Calls for Justice for Canada and Quebec. The third anniversary of the inquiry’s final report was on June 3. In addition, the first anniversary of the federal government’s action plan recently passed.

Senator Gold, one of the Calls for Justice is particularly important to me. Call for Justice 1.7 calls for the creation of an Indigenous ombudsperson position in partnership with organizations, Indigenous governments and the federal government. This Call for Justice also aims to create space for human rights and Indigenous peoples’ rights.

I would like to know where Canada stands with regard to Call for Justice 1.7, which is very important.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 13-4, I give oral notice of a question of privilege I intend to raise later this day.

When witnesses appear before Senate committees, parliamentary privilege is accorded to them and gives them certain immunities and protections, including protections against threats, intimidation and harassment. I became concerned with the timing and content of an article in The Globe and Mail dated September 27. It spoke of a complaint filed with the Commissioner of Lobbying against a witness who was scheduled to appear the following day before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

Later today, I will present my views, this being a potential question of privilege and contempt of Parliament.

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. As you probably noticed, Hockey Canada was in the news again yesterday. We know Hockey Canada’s lack of transparency has broken its bond of trust with Canadian families. Federal funding for the organization has been frozen, the police are investigating and an audit is under way. Minister St-Onge is suggesting people should resign, but is that enough, especially given that the senior executives and board members remain in place?

Isn’t it time to do the right thing and make it clear to Hockey Canada’s current leadership that the tide has turned and that we need a new team to send a very clear message that sexual violence and abuse are unacceptable?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government completely agrees with you, colleague, that the situation is totally unacceptable. That is why the minister has announced, as you just pointed out, that she wants to see a change within the team.

I will go even further. The government recently announced a comprehensive reform to the funding and accountability framework for sport federations. This reform will give Sport Canada the leverage to closely monitor organizations with respect to their governance and transparency practices. Accountability within sport federations will be significantly strengthened. In conclusion, the government reaffirms its resolve to put an end to the culture of silence that has prevailed for too long in the field of sport, not only in hockey, but unfortunately nearly everywhere, as we have seen recently.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people have the right to be safe in the communities they call home.

This national strategy calls for a whole-of-government approach, which means respecting our goals as a country and all the Calls for Justice.

I am told that, in the Federal Pathway, the Government of Canada committed to producing an annual progress report on key milestones and its progress toward fulfilling the commitments. On June 3, 2022, the government released the first Federal Pathway progress report. The report provides an update on more than 50 initiatives and programs launched as part of the Federal Pathway and led by 25 federal departments and agencies. The report also identifies what remains to be done.

Senator Audette: Let me repeat the question. What progress has the federal government made on Call for Justice 1.7 concerning the creation of an ombudsperson position?

Senator Gold: I don’t have an answer to your question. I will look into it and try to get a response for you. I want to note, however, that the work has already begun in partnership with Indigenous communities to ensure that we can develop the Federal Pathway together.

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, in recent days we have had information circulating that high-ranking government officials connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, and the brutal regime in Iran — including the family members of none other than the supreme leader himself — have been seeking refuge right here in Canada. It has been reported that many might already be here.

My question for you, government leader, is very simple. Can you tell us what due diligence the Trudeau government has undertaken to make sure that no individual, or individuals, with links to the IRGC and to this brutal government will be — or have been — granted entry into Canada?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I don’t have the answer to your question. I will endeavour to determine what information can be shared on a subject that clearly engages our security and our commitments to oppose the tyranny and the state-sponsored terrorism for which Iran is properly held accountable. I’ll do my best to have an answer as quickly as I can.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I want to thank colleagues in the Canadian Senators Group for this opportunity to ask a question. It’s a rare and generous offer.

The 2022 Hong Kong Watch report recently revealed that Canada has holdings in Chinese companies on the U.S. sanctions list and companies that have provided equipment used in camps where it’s estimated that about a million Uighurs are still detained.

Respected former parliamentarians Irwin Cotler and David Kilgour noted that Canada Pension Plan investments are more than $50 billion in Chinese companies. In addition, other pension plan investments have been reported to have been made in companies connected to the forced labour of Uighurs. We also have reports of several provincial Crown investment management corporations listed as investing in equities and companies accused of human rights violations in China. Perhaps more shocking is the fact that Canadian universities have endowment funds invested with firms that are exposed to these inequities.

Although we condemn the genocide, we continue what Hong Kong Watch has called “passively supporting oppression” by investing in Chinese equities with proven links to industries in contravention of human rights.

My question, Senator Gold: How is Canada identifying violators? What is Canada doing to ensure that public and private investments, such as the Canada Pension Plan, are not contributing to these human rights violations by investing in such companies?

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]