The Hon. the Acting Speaker: The agreement for the extension was to answer the question you had on the floor.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of October 19, 2022, moved:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, introduced in the House of Commons on September 20, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate; and

That, for the purposes of this study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting, with the application of rule 12-18(1) being suspended in relation thereto.

Hon. Patricia Bovey (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): Honourable senators, is five more minutes granted?

Agreed? Thank you.

Senator Tannas: I wonder if you could tell us why you think we only need to hear from the PBO. There’s been a number of issues raised and MPs that support this. I received a letter today from two P.E.I. MPs supporting that we pass the bill unchanged. Why wouldn’t we deal with the commissioner that you talked to on the phone and got a whole bunch new information?

Senator Patterson: Good question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, on October 4, 2022, Senator Tannas raised a question of privilege about a series of events surrounding the appearance of a witness at a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications on September 28. He argued that these events constituted an attempt to intimidate the witness. I am prepared to rule on this serious issue.

Senator Tannas’ written notice indicated that the question of privilege related to a concern that “[t]he timing and content of an article in the Globe and Mail on September 27, 2022, … may constitute intimidation of a witness.” According to the article, a Liberal member of the House of Commons alleged that a witness had failed to disclose funding from YouTube. Senator Tannas argued this may constitute intimidation. His oral notice reflected the content of the written notice. Both notices therefore respected the requirement that they “indicat[e] the substance of the alleged breach” and “identify the subject matter that shall be raised as a question of privilege,” which are from rules 13-3(1) and 13-3(4), respectively.

Many senators participated in consideration of the question of privilege. We were informed that the appearance of the witness before the Senate committee was announced on September 23, 2022. The article in The Globe and Mail of September 27 mentioned a request put to the Commissioner of Lobbying by a member of the other place. We were advised that the request may have been linked, at least in part, to an appearance by the same witness before a committee of the other place earlier in the year.

A number of senators also raised a range of other issues generally relating to this situation. These included, in particular, concerns that events in a committee of the other place had so intimidated witnesses that some individuals might be unwilling to appear before the Senate committee. I wish to thank all honourable senators for their thoughtful reflections on the important issues that were discussed during consideration of the question of privilege.

Before dealing with the substance of the issue, let me remind senators that a question of privilege is raised when there is “[a]n allegation that the privileges of the Senate or its members have been infringed.” Privilege deals with “[t]he rights, powers and immunities enjoyed by each house collectively, and by members of each house individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies and individuals.” Privilege exists so that parliamentary bodies can conduct their critical work in our democratic system with the necessary degree of autonomy and independence. I encourage honourable colleagues to review the 2015 and 2019 reports by our Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, which deal with the place of privilege in a modern Canada.

At this stage, my role as Speaker is not to decide whether a breach of privilege has in fact occurred. That decision belongs to the Senate. My role is limited to determining if a concern raised, in relation to privilege, has prima facie merits. That is to say whether, at first impression, there is strong enough concern that a breach has occurred that the Senate should deal with the matter under the special procedures of Chapter 13 of the Rules. In doing this, I am guided by the four criteria set out in rule 13-2(1). All these criteria must be met for the issue to proceed to the next step, which is debate in the Senate on a motion to study the matter or to take other action.

In this case we can begin by considering the nature of the concern raised, a point related to the second and third criteria of rule 13-2(1). The second criterion requires that the question of privilege be directly related to the privileges of the Senate, a committee of the Senate, or a senator. The third criterion requires that a question of privilege be raised to correct a grave and serious breach.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the two houses of Parliament are autonomous self-governing institutions. During debate on the question of privilege, numerous references were made to proceedings in a committee of the other place. Concerns were expressed about how witnesses were treated and the effects this may have had. The Senate has no role in reviewing how the other place chooses to conduct its business. Senators can, and typically do, exhibit respectful behaviour towards witnesses. I also note the importance of being assiduous in continuing to do so. Anything touching on what may have happened in the House of Commons or one of its committees, or as a follow-up to events there, is, however, not for us to consider.

In past cases about possible obstruction of witnesses, the actual or potential actions that may have negatively affected the individuals involved were clearly identified. In a 1999 case involving a witness who appeared before our Agriculture and Forestry Committee, the witness considered that a suspension by his employer was directly related to his appearance. On this basis, a prima facie case of privilege was established. However, during its investigation, the Rules Committee of the Senate found no clear link between the suspension and the appearance.

In a 2013 case involving the RCMP, it was established that a witness who had been invited to appear before our National Security and Defence Committee, and who had accepted, was prevented from appearing because of the actions of officials of the force. A prima facie case of privilege was therefore established. In its report, the Senate’s Rules Committee noted that, while the National Security and Defence Committee had not been able to hear from a particular witness, its work had not been unduly impeded, since it did hear from the witness’ association. Our Rules Committee also stated that the RCMP had indicated that the matter had been rectified for future requests from Parliament.

Finally, reference was made in debate to a 1992 case in the other place, where a witness before a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General was threatened with legal action by the CBC because of her testimony. While the Speaker found a prima facie case of privilege, subsequent review determined that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a finding of contempt.

However, in the case before us, no clear indication has been provided as to how the witness before the Senate committee was affected or threatened in relation to that appearance. Indeed, the witness received correspondence from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying suggesting that, in relation to at least some of the issues involved, he had respected legal requirements. We therefore seem to be dealing with the fact that a member of the other place requested that the commissioner review certain facts relating to the witness. At least in part, this may have been based on information received during a meeting of a House of Commons committee. These facts were published in a newspaper article, which also included an opportunity for the witness to respond.

There are three significant points to be made here. First, the Lobbying Act makes clear that parliamentarians can provide information to the Commissioner of Lobbying relating to a possible investigation. Second, to the extent parliamentary proceedings were involved, they related to a proceeding of the House of Commons, not the Senate. Finally, this situation relates to information appearing in the media. We thus need to take into consideration the balance between the freedom of Parliament and freedom of the press, which is also a fundamental feature of our constitutional system. The autonomy of the media ought not to be questioned in Parliament except with clear and direct evidence that such a grave and troubling step cannot be avoided. As already noted, nothing in the debate on the question of privilege indicated that the Senate need consider such a step at this time.

Taking all these factors into account, it cannot be concluded that the Senate’s privileges are involved. Nor can it be concluded that any concern is of such seriousness as to require us to consider interfering with the interaction between parliamentary autonomy and that of the media. As such, the second and third criteria of rule 13-2(1), which were outlined earlier, have not been established. We do not therefore need to review the remaining criteria, and the ruling is that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.

(1510)

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to the order adopted December 7, 2021, I would like to inform the Senate that Question Period with the Honourable Omar Alghabra, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport, will take place on Thursday, October 27, 2022, at 4 p.m.

[English]

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, this question is from Senator Plett:

With the Emergencies Act inquiry currently underway, Canadians are learning that CSIS, Canada’s intelligence agency, had informed senior government officials that no evidence was found of foreign actors or states financing the convoy protest in the week prior to the Emergencies Act being invoked. As was reported in The Globe and Mail, CSIS Director David Vigneault said:

There is not a lot of energy or support from the U.S.A. to Canada. CSIS has also not seen any foreign money coming from other states to support this.

Yet on February 11, Prime Minister Trudeau was asked by Marieke Walsh more details on the percentage of finances coming from the U.S. This is what the Prime Minister said:

Those aren’t details that I have right in front of me. I have heard that, on certain platforms, the number of U.S. donations are approaching 50%.

Senator Gold, those are two very different storylines. I cannot see how they can possibly differ or contradict one another any further. Leader, who are Canadians supposed to believe — CSIS or the Prime Minister? Again, it is a very simple question — CSIS or the Prime Minister?

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be authorized to meet on Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., even though the Senate may then be sitting and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): My question again is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, the Trudeau government spent over $54 million to develop the failed ArriveCAN app, something that could have been done for $1 million or $2 million. Obviously, someone made a lot of money on this, and as usual with the Liberals, we all suspect it is Liberal insiders who profited. Now the plot thickens. We learned this morning that ThinkOn never received any money for the app. The Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, had listed ThinkOn as having received $1.2 million in a reply to an Order Paper question in the House. “We received no money from the CBSA,” said Mr. Craig McLellan, CEO of ThinkOn. Nor has ThinkOn done any work on ArriveCAN, he claims.

Senator Gold, why did CBSA give that information to Parliament if this is not true? Can you tell us who received the over $1 million of taxpayer funds?

Senator Plett: Well, I am sure you will add it to the list of things that we have to wait for answers for. The government refuses to allow a committee of the House to study the expenses on ArriveCAN and the value Canadian taxpayers got for that money.

I do not think you have to do any research on this one, Senator Gold. I do respect that you have to on my first question. Senator Gold, would you agree that our Senate National Finance Committee or our Transport and Communications Committee should be tasked with such a study? If the government has nothing to hide, why not let the Senate get to the bottom of this?

Senator Gold: I wish it were in my power — or anyone’s power — to ensure the realization of those objectives.

I can tell you that I met with Minister Miller today. I know that he and his colleagues — Minister Dan Vandal and many others — are taking a whole-of-government approach to try to work on all aspects of this, especially for communities like yours, and others, that are more remote from decision-making centres and, unfortunately, too infrequently in those centres’ minds.

The government is committed to doing what it can. It is slow and laborious, and it is never enough. Minister Miller, to his credit, is quite open about that. I am convinced that this government will continue to work as hard as it can, with the communities, to address the social causes and the horrible consequences that you described so well.

Hon. Senators: Yes.

Hon. Amina Gerba: Honourable senators, when asked a few days ago about the reduction of Western aid to African countries and the potential impact this could have on the ties between those countries and Russia and China, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, replied that democracies can only be defended by people who are “prepared to die for their democracy.”

Although Minister Freeland has already apologized for this, I decided to speak out today because her statement raises some serious issues.

To start, I believe it is only fair to say that the preservation of democracy in a country must rest first and foremost with its citizens, their beliefs and their determination. It is also true that democracy, the universal values it represents and its embodiment in a country are a national issue, an issue of national sovereignty. Therefore, it is important to distance ourselves from any interference in this area, except under exceptional circumstances.

Canada is one of the oldest democracies in the world. Our democratic values and institutions are exemplary. We’re available to share our experience with any country in the world that so desires. To that end, we’ve participated in a number of multilateral initiatives through major institutions, such as the World Bank, the Commonwealth and la Francophonie.

Colleagues, I believe that Canada needs to modernize and expand its diplomatic efforts to support human rights and democracy at a time when democratic gains are in jeopardy in some countries in Central and West Africa — countries that are our friends.

If we fail to do so, others will, as demonstrated by the return of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes to the continent.

I sincerely hope that democracy will prevail in these difficult times.

Thank you.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, today I am pleased to present Chapter 66 of “Telling Our Story.”

Dr. Cluny Macpherson was born in St. John’s, Newfoundland, on March 18, 1879. He received his early education at Methodist College and at McGill University Faculty of Medicine, from 1897 to 1901, where he earned his degree in medicine. He began his medical career at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh.

In 1902, he returned to Newfoundland, where he joined the Labrador Grenfell Mission, begun by Dr. Wilfred Grenfell, and ran the hospital in Battle Harbour, Labrador. Macpherson later became a director of the Newfoundland and International Grenfell Associations. He helped develop the Seaman’s Institute — later called the King George V Institute — another Grenfell project.

Returning to St. John’s a few years later, Dr. Macpherson opened a private practice, and eventually became the leading practitioner in Newfoundland. Macpherson started the first St. John Ambulance brigade in Newfoundland after working with the St. John Ambulance Society. When World War I broke out, members enlisted in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, and he organized the volunteers into an ambulance unit which served throughout the war.

At the start of the war in August 1914, Macpherson was commissioned as the Captain and Principal Medical Officer of the newly formed Newfoundland Regiment. He saw active duty in Belgium and France, at Salonika and later at Gallipoli, as well as in Egypt.

The German army used poisonous gas for the first time against allied troops at the Second Battle of Ypres, in Belgium, on April 22, 1915. In response to the actions of the Germans, Macpherson began researching methods of protection against the poisonous gas. Before that, a soldier’s only protection was to breathe through a handkerchief or small piece of fabric soaked in urine.

Using a helmet, taken from a captured German prisoner, Macpherson added a canvas hood with eyepieces and a breathing tube. The helmet was treated with chemicals that would absorb the chlorine used in the gas attacks. It is said it is thanks to his medical training, knowledge of basic chemistry and some clear imagination that Macpherson invented what was at first called the Hypo Helmet and later known worldwide as the gas mask. In June 1915, Macpherson’s helmet was the first general issue gas countermeasure to be used by the British Army.

His invention was the most important protective device of the First World War, protecting countless soldiers from blindness, disfigurement or injury to their throats and lungs. For his services, Captain Macpherson was made a companion of the Order of St Michael and St George in 1918.

During World War II, Dr. Macpherson served in ship convoys in the North Atlantic. During his lifetime, he received many awards for his duty and service. To name a few, in 1913, he was appointed a Knight of the British Order of St. John of Jerusalem; in 1955, he was appointed a Knight of Justice; and in 1964, he most deservingly received the Canadian Forces’ Decoration.

In 1902, Dr. Macpherson married Eleanora Barbara Macleod Thompson, of Northumberland County in Ontario, and they had two children. Their family home at 65 Rennie’s Mill Road in St. John’s, where he served as secretary, treasurer and registrar for the Newfoundland Medical Society, now has historic designation.

Dr. Cluny Macpherson, another proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian who proved to us all that, yes, one person can make a difference and change the world.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, let me begin by thanking His Honour for the moment of silence today.

I rise today, of course, with a heavy heart, as you would expect. My home region of Simcoe County is mourning the tragic loss of the two police officers who were killed in the line of duty.

Constable Morgan Russell and Constable Devon Northrup of the South Simcoe Police Service were fatally shot responding to a domestic disturbance call just last week. Their loss deeply affects all of us — not only me as a former police officer but also as a mother of one.

Constable Morgan Russell was 54 years old and had served for 33 years in his community. He was a founding member of the Emergency Response Unit, a coach officer, a recruiter and a crisis negotiator. He will be remembered for his kindness and for the calming presence he brought to difficult situations.

Friends describe Constable Russell as an absolute gentleman and a true example of what a community police officer is. This was further demonstrated when, earlier this year, he was awarded the Police Exemplary Service Medal from the South Simcoe Police Service for his continued years of service and commitment. Left to grieve are his wife, Marisa, and daughters, Madelaine and Maggie.

Constable Devon Northrup was only 33 years old and had served for 6 years in his community. He was a member of the mental health Crisis Outreach and Support Team and the Emergency Response Unit. Attending to calls like the one on that fateful night was typical work for Northrup. In 2020, he received the South Simcoe Police award for Excellence in Emergency Response for his work in assisting a suicidal man.

Prior to becoming a police officer, Devon was treasurer and director-at-large for the York Region Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, and a security officer. Colleagues from MADD remembered him as a gentle giant who had a smile that would light up a room. Devon Northrup is survived by his spouse Annie, also a police officer.

The devastated communities of Innisfil and Bradford and the tight-knit family of the South Simcoe Police Service are leaning on each other to cope with the loss of these officers.

A joint funeral service was held this morning in Barrie, which was attended by thousands of fellow officers and first responders from across North America. Brothers and sisters from the Ontario Provincial Police responded to calls for service within the South Simcoe jurisdiction to allow the many colleagues of the fallen officers time off to attend the funeral.

Dear colleagues, police officers leave their homes and their loved ones each day knowing the inherent risks of this type of work. Please, let us show them our support and our appreciation for all they do to serve and protect.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, we speak a great deal on the Hill about the need for innovation, disruption and for thinking outside of the box. I am very pleased to present to you its embodiment in the person of Andreas Souvaliotis.

Andreas was one of the first to harness the immense popularity of loyalty point programs in Canada and create the world’s first national wellness promotion platform, the once hugely popular Carrot app.

Carrot was built as a radical, modern alternative to old‑fashioned government advertising. It connected government and its agencies to Canadians coast to coast, allowing users to complete health questionnaires and track steps in exchange for reward points — truly a “carrot.” It promoted health and wellness, and it made it fun. No wonder, then, that at that time Andreas was frequently referred to as “Canada’s Chief Gamification Officer.”

The Carrot app quickly became so successful that it became the subject of academic studies and recognition across the world. It was named Canada’s top app of the year in 2017, and went on to win other major international awards.

But, colleagues, sadly, this story has an all too predictable Canadian ending. Jurisdictional confusion, infighting and long-entrenched differences between federal and provincial governments and policymakers unfortunately led to its untimely demise — ironically, just a few months before COVID-19 hit us. In another typically Canadian ending, whilst we have walked away from it, other nations like Greece are now picking up a made-in-Canada idea and running with it.

Just imagine how different our pandemic journey would have been if we still had a platform connecting us with millions of our citizens so directly, affordably and efficiently.

Colleagues, Andreas is a thought leader and a role model. He is autistic, gay, a musical prodigy, a philanthropist, an impact investor and an immigrant. He’s the author of a book called Misfit, because that’s what he has been: an autistic misfit. In short, colleagues, he is prolific, unconventional and relentless. I hope you will agree with me that we need many more like Andreas in Canada to make us a successful society going into the future.

[Translation]

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Colleagues, I was pleasantly surprised by an article published on the CBC website on October 7. It indicated that the federal government is currently working with immigration organizations to develop a massive program to regularize immigration status.

In a letter sent to the government in 2021, the Concertation haïtienne pour les migrants, or CHPM, pointed out the unique situation of non-status Haitian nationals in Canada. Many of these people worked in seniors’ homes at the height of the pandemic but didn’t qualify for the “guardian angels” regularization program in December 2020. They contribute to society and the Canadian francophonie but are stuck in limbo, living a parallel life with no social or legal safety net, in constant fear of being deported.

Honourable senators, I’m sure you’ve heard about the multidimensional crisis that is affecting my home country of Haiti. My heart aches at this nightmarish situation involving the collapse of democratic institutions; corruption; violence by gangs that are terrorizing people, raping women and controlling fuel; acute food insecurity; and the resurgence of cholera.

Haitians are surviving, but that is no way to live. Members of the Haitian diaspora living in Canada without status fear being deported to a country where their safety and that of their families will be in jeopardy. This regularization program will recognize their contribution to the Canadian economy and social fabric and will help give them peace of mind.

I am following this issue closely.

Colleagues, I appeal to you all to express your solidarity with the people of Haiti.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Mégie spoke in another language.]

Thank you. Mèsi anpil.

[English]

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, it’s been nearly eight months since Russia launched its heinous invasion of Ukraine. I’m proud of Canada’s steadfast support for Ukraine through this war. But what I would like to share today is not about the war. It’s about Ukraine’s ongoing digital transformation despite the war. When elected in 2019, President Zelenskyy immediately prioritized the digitalization of state services to better address the needs of Ukrainian citizens and to unleash the innovative potential of Europe’s largest IT sector. He immediately established the Ministry of Digital Transformation, responsible for creating a human-centred and transparent digital state that minimized the administrative burden for citizens and businesses.

The ministry led the creation of the Diia mobile application in its first six months of existence, powerfully demonstrating that diia means “action” in English. Today, Diia has earned the trust of 18 million users — half of Ukraine’s adult population. They have simplified access to 70 public services, documents and digital credentials like digital passports and driver’s licences. Ukraine is well on its way to having 100% of government services accessible online by 2024.

Wisely, they haven’t just digitized services but reinvented and simplified how those services are delivered. For example, registering a business was once a 64-field paper form. Today, creating a business and becoming an entrepreneur involves completing a few check boxes in 10 to 15 minutes. This is what happens when policy, practice and partnership efforts are synchronized.

Despite Russia’s constant and aggressive cyberattacks, Diia has delivered cybersecurity resilience and personal data protection, thanks to its advanced design and Ukraine’s extraordinary IT army. Whether at home or abroad, Diia has proven invaluable to Ukrainians during the war, enabling them to easily access critical information and assistance.

So how did they do it? I believe that their success rests on the recognition that government is a monopoly and the lack of competition removes pressure to innovate. To counter this fact, President Zelenskyy’s government has consistently displayed strong political leadership and commitment in support of Diia. They’ve also recognized that the risk of inaction is far greater than any other risk.

Colleagues, the United Nations reports on the e-government development status of all member states. Canada has declined steadily over the past 10 years. We now rank thirty-second, down from eleventh, and are far behind digital leaders like Denmark, the Republic of Korea and Estonia.

Estonia, the recognized leader in e-government, has accepted Ukraine’s offer to share its Diia source code, an offer that is available to Canada as well. We’d do well to look to Ukraine for ways to digitize our economy and increase the convenience of government services.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. No, you weren’t right. It is true that legalizing cannabis didn’t put an immediate end to the entire illegal, underground industry. It was always anticipated that it would take some time for Canadians who use cannabis to make the shift from the illegal market to legal sources.

It is also true that some cannabis producers may have been a little too optimistic about the profits that awaited them following legalization. It’s unfortunate that so many of them are struggling, but that is a risk that all entrepreneurs take when they start a business in a new industry.

For all these reasons, I wouldn’t agree that the opposition was right, on the contrary. The government was right to stop criminalizing production, and it was also right to legalize cannabis use in order to protect Canadians who want to purchase legal products and reduce the stigma for those who had no choice but to purchase it on the illegal market.