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.

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.

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.

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.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, and welcome, minister. My question concerns the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP. I asked Senator Gold about this at Senate Question Period yesterday and I didn’t get a good answer. I hope you will give me a better one today.

The membership of this committee is supposed to have three senators, but two of those seats have been vacant for a month. The last two times this committee was set up, the Prime Minister refused to appoint a senator from the official opposition. Now it appears he is doing the same thing all over again.

Minister, if NSICOP is so important to the Prime Minister, why hasn’t he filled the vacant seats? Why do you think he continually refuses to appoint a senator from the official opposition? Do you believe the official opposition in this chamber should be represented on the committee, yes or no?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Minister, crime is now at a record level in Winnipeg, as it is across the country. Winnipeg saw a record of 53 homicides in 2022, and 30% of them were committed with firearms.

In Bill C-5, the Trudeau government eliminated eight mandatory minimum penalties involving the use of a firearm in crime, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences and four others.

You seem to think that creating more gun laws is the answer.

Minister, how did the Trudeau government’s elimination of mandatory penalties involving the use of firearms help combat the rise in violent crime?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Well, since you asked me about the technical briefing, minister, let me ask you a question. Yesterday, Senator Gold’s parliamentary secretary, Mark Gerretsen, tweeted, “I’m calling on Senator @DonPlett to stop stalling & get tough on crime by passing C-21.” The bill has not been introduced in this chamber, minister. The Senate received Bill C-21 two sitting days ago. The sponsor has not spoken. I find it strange that he has been the parliamentary secretary in the Senate for a year and a half and he doesn’t have a clue how this chamber conducts its business. Why did Mark Gerretsen accuse me personally of stalling a bill that the government sponsor has not moved yet at second reading? Do you think this unfounded personal attack is warranted?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Saturday will mark four years since the release of the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Indigenous families want to know what happened to their loved ones, minister, just as any other family in Canada would. These families deserve answers and it is high time that the Trudeau government treated all victims of crime with respect. In both 2021 and 2022, I asked the Trudeau government what progress was being made by the RCMP in resolving these cold cases. I did not receive a satisfactory response but, frankly, that’s not surprising. Minister, what specific progress has been made in resolving the cold cases since the final report was released in 2019, and have any RCMP reviews resulted in arrests, charges laid or convictions?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Well, since you asked me about the technical briefing, minister, let me ask you a question. Yesterday, Senator Gold’s parliamentary secretary, Mark Gerretsen, tweeted, “I’m calling on Senator @DonPlett to stop stalling & get tough on crime by passing C-21.” The bill has not been introduced in this chamber, minister. The Senate received Bill C-21 two sittings days ago. The sponsor has not spoken. I find it strange that he has been the parliamentary secretary in the Senate for a year and a half and he doesn’t have a clue how this chamber conducts its business. Why did Mark Gerretsen accuse me personally of stalling a bill that the government sponsor has not moved yet at second reading? Do you think this unfounded personal attack is warranted?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I have a couple of questions for the senator if he would accept them.

Senator Cotter: I welcome them.