Senator Ringuette: May I have time to at least answer Senator Tannas?

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is permission granted?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for your question. The government values the contribution of temporary foreign workers to Canada’s economy.

As you know, colleagues, Budget 2022 invests $29.3 million that will introduce a trusted employer model in order to reduce red tape for employers who meet the highest standards for living and working conditions, as well as the protection of wages in high-demand jobs. These changes aim to help streamline application processes for Canadian companies hiring temporary foreign workers. This, in fact, builds upon the measures that were announced in the government’s Workforce Solutions Road Map, which introduces further changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in order to address the labour shortages across Canada.

I am advised that the government’s work to improve the Temporary Foreign Worker Program is ongoing. I will make inquiries with the government with regard to the trusted employer system, and I will provide details as soon as they become available.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Senator Ringuette, your time is up.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. It is an important one, as is the issue you raise.

Proper reporting and measurement are critical tools that governments and others need to ensure are in place in order to measure achievements and progress toward those objectives. In that regard, I am convinced the government will continue to work and take into account the recommendations and analysis presented in the reports that were just tabled.

As for the particular steps that may be taken, I will have to make inquiries and report back.

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the answer, Senator Gold.

That is fine, but I’m told that the development of the program has, more or less, come to a halt at the bureaucratic level and that little progress has been made. Beyond helping address labour shortages in Canada, the trusted employer system could have the added benefits of reducing the overall number of applications and allowing the IRCC to redirect its resources to other streams.

Of businesses surveyed, 55% are experiencing revenue loss as a consequence of the delays at the IRCC. This is important. Canada is competing with other countries for high-skilled workers, including the U.K. and Australia.

I will pose my question: Senator Gold, as the government develops the trusted employer system, can you assure us that they are considering a dedicated stream for highly skilled foreign nationals? We need to attract the brightest minds and most skilled workers in order to remain globally competitive.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. The Cannabis Council of Canada estimates that the black market continues to represent at least 50% of cannabis sales in this country. According to the council, the black market for cannabis is still flourishing four years after cannabis was legalized in Canada. The industry’s viability is at risk. Apparently, nearly all Canadian cannabis producers are operating at a deficit or are on the verge of bankruptcy.

In short, the Cannabis Council of Canada asserts that the Trudeau government’s legalization of cannabis did not achieve the three main objectives because young people still have access to it on the black market, the quality of black market products doesn’t protect Canadians’ health, and organized crime continues to profit. As we saw last week, cross-border smuggling, particularly in the United States, is at record levels.

The opposition raised these four issues when the cannabis legalization bill was being studied. Senator Gold, will you admit that we were right?

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. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, the war in Ukraine is rekindling fears of nuclear war, and Canadians are right to wonder what Canada is doing to protect our nation. The vast expanse of Canada’s North, larger than the whole of Europe, is now gripping the attention of government and security experts. At a time when tensions are high in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, they warn that North America’s Arctic may be vulnerable.

What is the federal government doing to protect Canada’s interests in the North?

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.