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: 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. 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. Senators: Hear, hear!

(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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: When I arrived in New York as consul general in the wake of 9/11, conversation, understanding were sorely needed. We were regularly invited to see our American neighbours, and we invited them back to our official Canadian home to share stories at the dinner table. I looked for a special piece of art to display on the dining-room wall, as art often sparks easy conversation. A stunning landscape by Dorothy Knowles did just that. Road to the West it was called. It turned heads and connected strangers. Her expansive paintings always captured the feel of the place, not just the geography.

Dorothy was born on a farm near Unity in 1927. Growing up in the Dirty Thirties, the brutality and the beauty of the land were imprinted, perhaps seared, on your soul as an artist.

The hardscrabble life shaped the way people looked at life and the land. We call it “next-year country,” a place where hope survives but realism reigns. Life is hard; determination is needed. It inspires art that is rooted in place. It was Dorothy’s signature style. Her paintings always made you feel as if you were looking through an open window. You know the old saying: In Saskatchewan you can watch your dog run away for two days.

Her landscapes were indeed breathtaking, but she produced still life and portraits. She was a relentless gardener on old homesteads that she shared with her artist husband, William Perehudoff, and she sewed for daughters, even for their Barbie dolls.

Dorothy had set out to study biology, but a friend persuaded her to take an art course at the famous Emma Lake. The workshops there were catnip to artists everywhere, the U.S. and Europe. Academics, painters, poets all flocked to Saskatchewan, finding the northern beauty and the intensity of the artists’ community simply irresistible.

Dorothy became a powerful force, an influencer before we used the moniker, giving young artists the courage to paint. For her success, she has Saskatchewan’s Order of Merit and the Order of Canada, and I had the honour of presenting her with the Senate One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary Medal. Yet, Dorothy Knowles remained incredibly humble and unpretentious.

Of her prolific career, she confessed:

I just want to pour that out on the canvas: My love for the landscape, my love for the trees and the wonderful radiance of the skies.

When asked for her advice on what to paint, Knowles said:

. . . set up facing the most traditionally picturesque vista you could find, then turn around and paint whatever was behind you.

Dorothy Knowles died peacefully last Tuesday at the age of 96. She was still putting brush to canvas. Her work will always be a touchstone for me and for many more. Thank you.

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 Christine St-Pierre, Maria Mourani, Marie-Michelle Desmeules and members of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne.

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

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I want to pay tribute to my guests, all of whom have helped fight sexual exploitation in Quebec. The All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, which I co-chair, organized a riveting panel on this issue today at noon in Parliament.

First of all, I want to pay tribute to Marie-Michelle Desmeules, a survivor who lived through this hell. For 10 years, she endured unspeakable violence at the hands of a pimp. She estimates that she was raped 25,000 times and she now suffers from post‑traumatic stress disorder. We thank you for testifying, Ms. Desmeules.

The Government of Quebec has amended its policy since 2016. Prostitution is now considered sexual exploitation in most cases.

Geneviève Albert, director of the award-winning film Noémie Says Yes, does a brilliant job of explaining that. Contrary to what some people might think, just saying yes is not giving consent. We cannot condone prostitution by hiding behind the misleading argument of consent. Only a very small minority of those who sell sexual services come out unscathed.

Unfortunately, there is no public information campaign to drive home the point that the purchase of sexual services is exploitation, and so the mentality around this issue is not really changing.

Former Quebec minister Christine St-Pierre sat on the Select Committee on the Sexual Exploitation of Minors. Yes, the exercise gave a bit more money to the police and support groups, but that is still not nearly enough to deal with the urgent needs and the normalization of this phenomenon, which has been exacerbated by social media.

Obviously there is consensus to denounce child pornography. However, what happens when these girls, who are entrapped, turn 18? This is when all the contradictions in how we view prostitution crystalize, because the exploitation continues, in many cases, in a context of manipulation and financial, psychological or physical coercion.

Victims such as Marie-Michelle Desmeules inspired criminologist and former federal independent MP Maria Mourani to legislate and to add human trafficking to the list of offences to which the forfeiture of proceeds of crime applies. This was a very long battle, in which she was championed in the Senate by none other than Senator Boisvenu.

The new promising initiatives in Quebec include courts specializing in sexual violence to better support victims and a kind of school for the clients of prostitutes, or “John School.”

Officer Ghyslain Vallières, from the Longueuil police service, got involved in a pilot project designed to change the behaviour of men arrested for paying for sexual services. These clients pay a fine and avoid court on the condition that they agree to take part in a day of awareness raising and survivor testimonials.

In closing, I want to paraphrase our filmmaker: It does not have to be this way; prostitution has a solution and it is a political one. Thank you.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Christine St‑Pierre, Maria Mourani, Marie-Michelle Desmeules and members of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne.

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.

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.