Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would you take a question, Senator Woo?

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: I have a question for my colleague, Senator Carignan, if he would accept it.

Senator Carignan: Of course.

Senator Lankin: I know in terms of the two official languages yes, she is; but we have many people who occupied these lands before us who speak a variety of Indigenous languages, such as Innu.

I also think that we are in a moment when we both need to revitalize and build sustainability for the French language, but we need to recognize that we’re in a moment of reconciliation as well, and this is such a significant appointment.

I enter this discussion wanting to think of this as a special, significant and really important appointment, and I accept the commitment to learn English here. However, I pose to you — and this is not a criticism of your bill; you’re trying to deal with something now — that we probably would be better in the long run in this country if we dedicated more time for all Canadian students to be proficient in both official languages. Do you have comment about that or are you interested in pursuing those kinds of recommendations or intervention with provincial education systems?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Yes, definitely. Obviously, when I said she was unilingual, I meant that she was not bilingual in terms of our two official languages. I commend the Governor General’s ability to speak other languages, including Inuktitut.

We must promote the two official languages, and we should encourage the idea of sending the best messages possible and funding everything to do with education in both official languages across the country as much as possible. I have children who became francophones outside Quebec. I’m not a grandfather yet, but I hope that my grandchildren will have the opportunity to continue to speak French and that they will be able to learn French even if they are outside Quebec. I hope that enriching experience will be available to them. Obviously, I do agree with that.

Hon. Frances Lankin: I’m very interested in the arguments that you make and very open to being supportive of this. I cherish this about our country, but my general approach to these things is, where possible, don’t try and fix it at the end. Let’s try and fix it at the beginning.

For me, that means maybe a group of us should get together and take a look at how we could build recommendations to influence provincial education systems to give appropriate language training in both official languages and bring our students through.

I certainly didn’t have access to quality training as a young person. I did in-place training in Quebec.

You said a number of times that we have a unilingual Governor General. I just want to point out that she’s not unilingual.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Yes, you are correct.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Carignan, will you take a question?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Yes.

[English]

Senator Wells: Senator Carignan, I meant Governor General. If I said lieutenant-governor, I accept the error.

You talk about presenting a positive light. Do you think it would be presenting a positive light if a French-speaking candidate for Governor General committed to learn English or the opposite — an English-speaking Governor General committed to learn French? Don’t you think that would also present perhaps an even more positive light on the position and on the necessity of bilingualism in Canada?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: The problem with committing to learning the other language when you don’t have the required proficiency from the beginning is that these are five-year terms. So, if the individual can’t communicate for two, three or four years with people in both official languages, part of their duties remains unfulfilled. The person should therefore have this proficiency at the time of the appointment, rather than promising to learn the other language.

We saw the example of the Auditor General. Mr. Ferguson began giving interviews in French about three years after his appointment. There was a period of time during his tenure when he was unable to communicate with francophones when presenting his reports and taking journalists’ questions. Obviously, making an effort to learn French or English, as the case may be, sends a positive message. I think you’ve seen my English improve, too. You’ve seen the efforts I’ve made to learn English and speak it as well as I can. Many of you have witnessed this. That said, the proficiency required to fill these positions must be in place from the beginning, not gained along the way, so that appointees can fully perform their duties.

[English]

Senator Woo: Yes.

Senator Housakos: Oh, “solution.” I do apologize. Senator McCallum, I’m getting old and it’s late. I thought I heard “pollution” instead of “solution.” I was surprised, because I know you are very thoughtful and have made huge contributions to this place. I was a little taken aback.

Back to the substance of your question, and I do apologize, colleagues — it’s late and I’m tired. Like I said, I wasn’t planning to enter the debate. To answer your question, senator, for the time I’ve been here now, 13 years, every time a non-affiliated senator has come into this chamber and was not a member of one larger group or another, my recollection is that we have gone always out of our way to accommodate them.

We did that from day one in 2016 when the first eight or nine non-affiliated Trudeau senators were appointed and didn’t have a group. They weren’t large enough. They were facing hostility from the then Liberal caucus, which, of course, has since been expelled from the national caucus. And the Conservative caucus, no secret, had a lot of deep reservations about the government’s new experiment in this chamber. Yet, we still welcomed every member. We still found ways to make sure they were given seats on committees. That has always been the case.

Even now with the two truly independent members of this chamber, I can tell you as leader I have reached out to both of them. I have had conversations. It wasn’t because of any motion from Senator Mercer or anyone else. It was understood because I know they have a voice. Senator McPhedran can confirm that. We have reached out because we believe they have a role to play.

Furthermore, as someone who understands rules and procedures in this place, there is no other chamber in the Westminster parliamentary system anywhere in the world where the rules are so weighted in favour of non-affiliated senators. How many times every night and every afternoon does the Speaker or Speaker pro tempore get up and say, “with leave of the chamber?” This simply means any senator can say, “Speaker, I don’t grant leave.” It could be Senator McPhedran or Senator Woo — they are equal in this place.

How many bills this week that we fast-tracked past second and third reading would not be law if Senator McPhedran today — whom I call the true independent along with Senator Brazeau — did not grant leave? They don’t have a group. They don’t have leadership. They could have stopped every single bill this week. They have as much power as anybody, including the government leader. Probably even more power. And that’s the truth. We are at the pleasure of these independent senators.

So if anyone believes you are joining a group because that gives you more strength, nonsense. God bless her, Senator Anne Cools taught me that just when I was sitting with the Conservative government benches as a backbencher and government leader at the time. Every time there was a government bill, we would look at — God rest her soul — Senator McCoy and Senator Cools and we said, “Boy, they’d better agree with this government legislation or it’s never going to pass and we are going to be here for weeks.” Right? How many times did we have to sit on Friday and Monday because Senator Cools and Senator McCoy weren’t happy? Of course I’m saying things that might give Senator McPhedran some ammunition. And I can tell you, she calls me regularly for advice. She has become a quick pupil on procedure, and she’ll be using them pretty soon — government leader, I’m sorry. Again, Senator McCallum, to answer your question, that’s the nature of the place.

I have been watching you with curiosity, and you are learning very quickly yourself and you are becoming a fantastic contributor. I see you with the number and the substance of your private members’ bills that you are tabling and your motions. You are representing your community with tremendous capacity. It has nothing to do with whatever group you’re in. You are doing it because you are exercising your right as a parliamentarian. You are moving great motions. You are speaking to them in an articulate fashion, and you persuade enough of your colleagues that they are going to pass. They will become the rule of the law of the land. That’s the way it goes.

Anybody who thinks this place is designed to give some kind of an advantage to a majority group, I can tell you that’s not the case. On the contrary, the most disadvantaged people in this chamber as a group, and I saw it because I came in with the government, is the government side. Senator Gold and Senator Gagné have the toughest jobs here, and it has become tougher because they have these various groups with various values to herd. I hope that answers the question.

Like I said, if anybody feels because they are independent or in a smaller group that they are somehow diminished, that’s not true. I repeat my point: When you are appointed as chair or deputy chair on any of these committees, you are representing a caucus. You are representing many other people behind you. Again, look at the accommodations despite the Rules. How many times have we gotten up here and done things where we said, “Notwithstanding rule . . .?” Why? Because we give in. We realize we have to be decent amongst each other to have credibility as an institution.

That is what I hope we will continue to do in this place, in the spirit of respect and cooperation, not in a spirit of antagonism. Yes, sometimes there are politics. Senator Gold and I engage in it. I have the utmost respect for him, and I hope he has some respect for me. We find ways to work. We put the politics aside when we have to and we do what we need to do in the best interests of the country. Eventually, we’ll solve all the problems of all the groups we represent. Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for the question. You raise an important issue that is front of mind: the housing situation for Canadians, especially young Canadians.

It is not true that the government is not doing anything about it. On the contrary, as it announced in the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada remains committed to making housing more affordable. That includes, among other things, the $4-billion Housing Accelerator Fund, a commitment to work for the less fortunate and to put an end to this terrible problem in our country, a more flexible First-Time Home Buyer’s Incentive, and a rent-to-own program that will help Canadians become homeowners.

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): My supplementary question is again for the government leader. Government leader, a study released this morning shows that Canadians will pay $1,000 more for food next year. The cost of vegetables is expected to rise by 7% and dairy products by 8%. This is more money out of the pockets of Canadians already dealing with higher costs of housing and transportation. Canadians across this country are feeling the pinch, government leader. Meanwhile, with the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada on inflation targets set to expire at the end of this month, Bloomberg is reporting this morning — colleagues, listen to this — that the Trudeau government is thinking of changing the mandate to allow for a higher inflation target.

Senator Gold, if this report is actually accurate, do you really believe Canadians can afford to pay even more than they already pay for basic living needs? If you take the affordability crisis seriously, why won’t your government commit to maintaining the reasonable 2% inflation target?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for her question. We have to quickly adopt measures in response to the new Omicron variant to protect Canadians. I want to point out that late last week, the government granted a temporary exemption from testing to Lufthansa, enabling Canadians to return to the country. I have been assured that the government is following the latest Public Health Agency of Canada guidelines and that the government will adapt its measures as the situation evolves, and that includes its testing guidelines and requirements.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am surprised that you are talking about following international guidelines, considering the World Health Organization has criticized Canada for refusing to accept these tests.

It seems to me that if the government is rejecting tests from 10 countries, including South Africa, it must suspect that the tests are defective, falsified or easy to circumvent.

Can the government provide us with the data it used to come to that conclusion, since that could help us and other countries too?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, senator.

As the government learns more about this variant of concern, it will continue to work with the provinces and territories and its international partners to keep Canadians safe. The government is currently working closely with Canadian public health experts and global partners to monitor the Omicron variant around the world.

I will reach out to the government about the evidence and the decisions and get back to you as soon as possible.

[English]

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Gold, yesterday an all-party committee of the National Assembly of Quebec called on the province to allow advance requests for medical assistance in dying following the diagnosis of an incurable or incapacitating disease. Canadian law currently excludes people with degenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s. The committee stated that capable people who will ultimately be incapacitated should be able to formulate an advance request for MAID as a result of the diagnosis. They added that the recommendations reflect an evolution in thinking and attitudes. To ensure the patient is acting in a free and informed manner, the committee recommends an advance request for MAID be completed and signed in front of a doctor, as well as countersigned by two witnesses or be made in a notarized form.

This is essentially what the Senate of Canada approved at the beginning of the year, but it was rejected by the government. Will the government please now reconsider?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, and for your ongoing advocacy on this important issue. Indeed, it was the view of the Senate that the time had arrived to provide for those provisions. Our view was not accepted in the other place. I certainly will communicate your views, comments and questions to the government and will report back if I receive an answer.

Senator Wallin: Senator Gold, the committee’s recommendations have been called practical and dignifying, and to guide the advance requests they agreed to rely on the principle of self-determination of the person. They agreed it was up to the individual to determine, within his or her values and convictions, what constitutes a life of dignity. Since March, that committee held 75 hours of hearings, two consultation phases, 46 steering committee meetings, heard from 77 people and organizations, accepted 75 briefs and received 3,421 responses online — all done in nine months, completely virtually.

Can the Government Representative please ask the government of its intention to restart the joint parliamentary committee and secure a commitment to do that immediately upon the return of Parliament at the end of January or perhaps sooner?

Senator Gold: I will certainly make that request, Senator Wallin. I will take this opportunity to thank you for underlining the important work that is being done in Quebec, which in this particular instance is leading the way, in many respects, for other provinces in Canada.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold. I want to ask a follow-up question to the previous reference I made to young women athletes. October 15 was actually an excellent day for Canada. That was the day when we saw 200 girls from an Afghan school flown into Canada and resettled here in record time. Would that it be the standard we are seeing most of the time, but it is not.

My question is about whether the Government of Canada, and in particular Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Minister Sean Fraser, could advise through a question from you whether they are conducting gender-based analysis on the evacuation and resettlement of Afghans coming to Canada. The anecdotal evidence would suggest that — even though we have a feminist foreign policy and we have the previous minister Marco Mendicino making a very strong set of statements promising that women at extreme risk would be in a priority area — our numbers relative to other countries are, in fact, low. If you would, seek clarification on this, please.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for his question.

I don’t have any details about the case you just described or why that request was made. I will find out and come back with an answer as soon as possible.