Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Cotter, for the report. We have all been waiting anxiously, and here we have it.

Senator Cotter, I note that the committee decided not to pass an amendment to the bill regarding the inclusion of suspension without pay to the list of possible disciplinary measures, even though it was recommended by witnesses. Bill C-9 does include less serious options — for example, a reprimand requiring an apology — and then it seemingly jumps over to the very serious penalty of removal from the bench, with nothing in between. Given that suspension without pay seems to work well in Ontario — according to the Ontario Judicial Council — and it was called for by other witnesses, why would the committee ultimately decide not to include this in the bill?

Senator Cotter: As a person’s tombstone read, “I expected this.” Senator Plett, I expected this question, so thank you. Although I am tempted to say that Senator Dalphond could provide a more comprehensive answer, let me share with you — on behalf of the committee — the deliberations and what I think were, perhaps, the determining factors that led to people voting against adopting the amendment. It was an amendment that was carefully investigated and considered in advance by Senator Batters and the committee.

It is true that a number of provinces have that included in their judicial misconduct proceedings in relation to provincial court judges; you are correct about that. Some of the most articulate witnesses suggested it. In fact, probably the leading academic authority on this topic is Professor Richard Devlin from the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, and it is one of the recommendations that he made.

Two arguments were advanced to express concern about that particular amendment. One of them was a practical one: If the sanction is suspension of a judge with pay that tends to mean a free vacation for that judge. It is embarrassing to the judge, but it burdens the other judges who have to carry that judge’s workload. It didn’t feel very much like an actual sanction.

The second argument is somewhat more subtle — which justice officials shared with us and which, I think it’s fair to say, Senator Dalphond advanced forcefully: The structure of treating judges’ pay is required to be governed by a compensation process every four years. It is unconstitutional in this line of argument for the salary of that judge to be reduced. If you suspend a judge, even as a sanction, and reduce their pay, there is a fairly strong argument — I don’t want to say that it’s determinative — that it would be an unconstitutional interference with judicial independence.

I think there is no question — and Senator Batters articulated this well — that there is a gap in the series of sanctions, but this one presented different problems in relation to the judiciary as opposed to so many other lines of work, whether it’s lawyers, police officers or any others with respect to which you and I are familiar.

That’s the best I can do in terms of describing the thinking of the committee in a close decision not to adopt that amendment.

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.)

Senator Plett: Thank you, minister. Certainly a better answer than I got yesterday, though not as complete as what I would like.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, has told a former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada that he and his parliamentary caucus were targeted by a sophisticated misinformation and voter suppression campaign orchestrated by Beijing before and during the 2021 election.

CSIS told Erin O’Toole that the Communist regime paid for specific products of misinformation against him. Yet your boss, the Prime Minister, and his made-up rapporteur are still telling Canadians that NSICOP is sufficient to investigate Beijing’s interference. You say a secret committee is better than a public inquiry. That would be a joke, minister, if Beijing’s interference wasn’t so serious.

The Trudeau government doesn’t care enough about NSICOP to fill its vacancies quickly — and although you answered my question partly — to include a senator from the official opposition or to act upon the committee’s report and recommendations.

I can only conclude that you and the Prime Minister are desperate to hide something. What is it, minister?

The creation of the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians was one way in which we could do that, but the other thing we did at the same time was to create the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, NSIRA, which is currently chaired by a former Supreme Court of Canada justice, Madam Justice Marie Deschamps.

Together, those initiatives reflect the sobriety with which we understand foreign interference poses a risk to our national security landscape. I assure you, senator, and all of the members that the path forward is through the engagement of Canadians, which we believe the public hearings process that Mr. Johnston has prescribed will facilitate as an objective.

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.)

Senator Batters: I’m just preparing my third-reading speech, so I think I know the answer. I think it is seven full meetings hearing from witnesses and then three clause-by-clause sessions, so quite a few. I don’t think I totalled up the number of witnesses yet, but we will have that. In comparison, the House of Commons Justice Committee studied it only for three meetings and held one clause-by-clause session, so we certainly did a good bit of work on that.

One other thing I wanted to ask you about, Senator Cotter, is just because there has been considerable media attention since this bill was first dealt with in this chamber, so many in this chamber may not know this answer. There is currently quite a high-profile case involving a Supreme Court justice and a disciplinary conduct proceeding that is ongoing right now. It is my understanding — and Justice Minister Lametti indicated this — that this act would not apply to that proceeding because it is not law yet. Is that correct? Only cases moving forward after Bill C-9 becomes law would be subject to this new disciplinary process, and any current cases would be under the existing system; is that correct?

Senator Cotter: I think you are right on that, Senator Batters. It is one good argument for moving this along fairly expeditiously so that a modern regime can be put in place for any new complaints that might be presented in relation to Superior Court judges. With respect to the matter to which you referred, the old, existing process would apply.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I am honoured to rise today to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Society of United Chinese Community Enrichment Social Services, known as S.U.C.C.E.S.S.

S.U.C.C.E.S.S. was founded in 1973 by a group of visionaries who believed in the goodness of people and the importance of community service. They sought to help new Canadians of Chinese descent overcome language and cultural barriers. Maggie Ip, Jonathan Lau, Mei-Chan Lin, Pauline To and Linda Leong established S.U.C.C.E.S.S. half a century ago, and today it is one of B.C.’s most respected charitable organizations.

As one of British Columbia’s largest multicultural, multi-service agencies, S.U.C.C.E.S.S. delivers services in the areas of newcomer settlement, employment, English-language training, health and senior housing as well as in the areas of business, auto insurance and economic, community and social development. S.U.C.C.E.S.S. also provides advocacy work in promoting positive social change.

Today, with the leadership of CEO Queenie Choo and Board Chair Terry Yung, more than 900 professional staff and over 2,000 volunteers are assisting new immigrants at all stages of their Canadian experience at 30 locations across Greater Vancouver, Fort St. John and overseas in China and South Korea.

S.U.C.C.E.S.S.’s first overseas office was opened in Seoul, Korea, to offer services through the Active Engagement and Integration Project, or AEIP. AEIP aims to facilitate smooth transition for newcomers to Canada by providing services that promote community and labour market engagement in Korea prior to their departure to Canada.

The strength of diversity that exists today in B.C. and across Canada is in part because of pioneers, visionaries and leaders of organizations like S.U.C.C.E.S.S., who understand the central role that charities play in Canadian society.

Today I have the honour of co-hosting, along with Senator Yuen Pau Woo, MP Marc Dalton, MP Jenny Kwan, MP Taleeb Noormohamed, S.U.C.C.E.S.S. on the Hill in the Sir John A. Macdonald Building from 4 to 6 p.m. I invite all honourable colleagues to join us in celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of S.U.C.C.E.S.S. Together we can work to expand the vision of S.U.C.C.E.S.S. and provide essential services and resources for newcomers to Canada, seniors, families and individuals in need.

Honorable senators, please join me in commending S.U.C.C.E.S.S. for 50 years of dedicated service.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, today I rise to recognize Connie Walker, a Saskatchewan-born Cree journalist who was recently awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her podcast series “Stolen: Surviving St. Michael’s.” She also received a Peabody Award for this work, which has been described as an example of “. . . revelatory reporting and illuminating storytelling . . . .”

Walker grew up on Okanese First Nation, located about 118 kilometres northeast of Regina. This project, which began as a personal search for answers about Walker’s father’s experience at St. Michael’s residential school, turned into an investigation that uncovered the systemic abuse of hundreds of Indigenous children who were forced to attend St. Michael’s, including other members of Walker’s extended family.

Connie Walker’s podcast, with its meticulous research, powerful storytelling and deep-seated compassion, has given us another channel to bring to light the painful history of residential schools in Canada. Through her exceptional journalistic skills, Ms. Walker illuminated a dark chapter that was long shrouded in silence and denial. With each episode, she took listeners on a journey of discovery, allowing survivors to share their stories and bringing their experiences to the forefront of public awareness.

In celebrating Connie Walker’s achievement, we must acknowledge the courage and resilience of the survivors who shared their painful experiences. By trusting in Ms. Walker’s commitment to truth and justice, they have allowed their voices to be heard, often reliving traumatic memories in the hope of fostering understanding and creating a better future for generations to come. This award not only recognizes Connie Walker’s exceptional storytelling but also honours the bravery and resilience of those who have come forward to share their stories.

The inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in the media benefits all of us. By embracing these narratives, we open ourselves up to different ways of knowing, being and relating to one another. Indigenous stories have the power to inspire, educate and provoke meaningful conversations that transcend cultural boundaries. To achieve this, we need new, fresh and accessible ways to amplify Indigenous voices such as Ms. Walker’s. We must support and encourage Indigenous filmmakers, writers, journalists and content creators to share their stories. By investing in diverse perspectives, we can cultivate a media landscape that is reflective of our diverse society. May Connie Walker’s achievement continue to inspire us all to listen, learn and take action.

Thank you and hiy kitatamîhin.

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: Thank you, Your Honour, and let me add my name to the list of congratulations to you. It’s wonderful to see you in the chair.

Honourable senators, I rise today with a deep sense of respect and gratitude as we recognize the remarkable achievements of Dr. Ian Bowmer, who is joining us today. A highly skilled clinician, medical educator, researcher and trailblazing leader, Ian has carved out a career that has influenced an entire generation of medical practitioners.

As an internist, infectious disease specialist and HIV/AIDS care provider and researcher for 40 years, Dr. Bowmer is recognized as an international authority and global expert in this field. He has held several pivotal positions throughout his career. He was elected president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada in February 2019. Effective March of this year, he accepted the role in an interim position. His resolute and steadfast commitment navigated the Royal College through the turbulent waters of the recent pandemic. Ian has also served as executive director and CEO of the Medical Council of Canada for 11 years, retiring in October 2018. He is the recipient of several honours, including Canada’s One Hundred and Twenty‑Fifth Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal; election to the Royal College of Physicians of London, England; and the Senate One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary Medal for contributions to the community — just to name a few.

Beyond his professional accomplishments, Dr. Bowmer is known for his compassion and dedication to serving underserviced communities. He has been actively involved in outreach programs, volunteering his time and expertise to help improve access to health care and reduce health disparities, making a significant impact on the lives of many.

My own career has been profoundly influenced by his vision and support of enhancing rural and remote medicine. Dr. Bowmer is professor emeritus and the former dean of medicine at the Faculty of Medicine at Memorial University. He appointed me to the faculty in 1992, meaning that, yes, he is indeed my former boss and someone who I continue to admire and respect. He laid the foundation for medical training in a longitudinal fashion outside of a tertiary care environment in my province. Ian has a deep passion for the arts and literature, superb culinary skills à la Gordon Ramsay and a truly altruistic and caring persona balanced by a mischievous sense of humour.

My colleagues in this chamber and I applaud you for your many contributions to our home province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to our country and for your global achievements.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Ian Bowmer. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Ravalia.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Plett: I hope I can ask another question. It’s not the first time I have been accused of being predictable, so I won’t take any exception to that now either.

Senator Cotter, I also noted that Minister Lametti was invited to appear a second time at committee to answer questions — indeed by members of the committee — as you began to consider the amendments at clause-by-clause consideration. The minister declined. It would seem, to me, that the minister would be happy to appear if he was invited by the committee in order to help with what ended up being quite a difficult process with quite a — I don’t want to use the word “convoluted” — difficult bill. Why would the minister not appear?

Senator Cotter: I don’t do mind reading very well, so I’m not able to say what motivated Minister Lametti — he did decline. It was the request of the committee, and we anticipated that it would be an opportunity to have a dialogue with respect to possible amendments that the committee might consider. We would have liked him to come before clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill — I don’t have an answer. I think it would have been slightly more helpful, and he may have given us a reason not to embrace these amendments, or to embrace them; I don’t know.

As you probably know, this is work that has been done over a number of years in trying to fashion a modern system that involves the Canadian Judicial Council, the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, the Ministry of Justice and the Minister of Justice. It is a delicate way of constructing a good, modern regime for judicial misconduct reviews.

I’m not offering a defence of Minister Lametti, but he has been terrific in terms of his attendance at the committee, and perhaps he felt that once per bill was enough.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Founder Maggie Ip, Board Chair Terry Yung, Chief Executive Officer Queenie Choo and leaders of S.U.C.C.E.S.S. (B.C.). They are the guests of the Honourable Senators Martin, Woo and Oh.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Ian Bowmer. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Ravalia.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Founder Maggie Ip, Board Chair Terry Yung, Chief Executive Officer Queenie Choo and leaders of S.U.C.C.E.S.S. (B.C.). They are the guests of the Honourable Senators Martin, Woo and Oh.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Senator Plett: This is really just a simple question, Senator Cotter. I do have a problem with a minister not appearing. We do have a bit of a policy, “no minister, no bill.” Now, I understand we can’t get them all the time. But especially in the case of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, what would you suggest, Senator Cotter, when the committee has other questions for a minister, and the minister refuses to appear? What’s your suggestion as to how we deal with that situation?

Senator Cotter: Thank you, Senator Plett. Ever so briefly, I’m relatively junior to the role of chairing committees and don’t have the wealth of experience that you do of ministers attending or not attending committees. At a certain point, I’m sure it becomes excessive to ask a minister to show up repeatedly with respect to the same bill. These are important questions. They were well explored with the minister in the first go-round. We probably sharpened our focus as we edged toward amendments, but it is not as though we did not hear from the minister on the points that were in contention.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Ingrid Sahu. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Omidvar.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Magali Portier. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Moncion.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Vanessa Casiong. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut).

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.