Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise today to once again congratulate Senator MacAdam on her appointment to the Senate and to welcome her to our chamber.

Senator MacAdam joins the Senate as we continue to pursue our modernization project, which includes the goal of seeking greater gender equality. Although we cannot pretend to have broken the glass ceiling — because achieving equality is much more than simply a matter of numbers — with your arrival here today, Senator MacAdam — and just before you, Senator Petten’s — over 50% of the senators appointed to this chamber are women. That’s very good news.

[Translation]

Colleagues, Senator MacAdam is a chartered professional accountant with over 40 years of experience in legislative auditing. She recently served as the auditor general of Prince Edward Island, her home province, for seven years.

Senator MacAdam has worked in the areas of climate change policy and social assistance, among others.

Senator, there is still so much work to be done in those areas. Here in the Senate, you will continue to play an important role in keeping a watchful eye over studies and legislation in those areas.

[English]

Senator MacAdam, I can only imagine that your Island colleagues, Senator Downe and Senator Francis, have already told you that your wealth of experience in accounting, finance and auditing will certainly be an asset to several Senate committees, be it the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, the Banking Committee or the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight. In all of these, your expertise will be valued, of course. But the Senate is also a place to bring your expertise to many areas. Allow me to encourage you to seize the opportunity to explore new issues of interest to you while you are here.

Senator MacAdam, I have all the confidence that you will be a strong voice for Atlantic Canadians and, indeed, for all Canadians as you exercise your role here at the Senate.

Once again, welcome to the Senate. Here, the month of June is one of the busiest times of the year, as we are all experiencing. There’s no better way to get to know this place than by diving in feet first. Welcome, Senator MacAdam. We look forward to working with you.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, on behalf of the opposition and the Senate Conservative caucus, I am pleased to welcome our new colleague the Honourable Beverly Jane MacAdam to the Senate of Canada and to our Senate family.

Today, as you take your seat in the upper chamber, I am sure that you are filled with excitement and anticipation — like many of us were on our first day in the Senate. It is also a day where we feel the weight of the responsibility that has been entrusted to each of us. Our duty, as senators, is to ensure that what we do is in the best interests of Canadians — and, in your case, the best interests of the people of Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada. I trust that you will do your utmost best to ensure that the voices of the great people of P.E.I. are well represented in Parliament, especially in this chamber.

Senator MacAdam, I am pleased to see that your sponsor today is Senator Elizabeth Marshall, as you both appear to have similar backgrounds and experiences. Your experience as Prince Edward Island’s Auditor General from 2013 to 2020, as well as your 40 years of experience working in legislative accounting, will certainly benefit both your committee work and the work of the Senate. Financial auditing is important, and your eyes and perspective on the many decisions we are called upon to make in this chamber will be welcome.

That is true even more so now, as we are dealing with a government that refuses to tell Canadians how much they will be on the hook for interest payments on the rising debt for the fiscal year. Your input on financial prudence is needed, and it will hopefully carry a lot of weight, as do many of Senator Marshall’s interventions.

Senator MacAdam, our Conservative caucus looks forward to working and collaborating with you in this chamber and at committee. Welcome once again to the Senate of Canada, and best wishes to you as you begin this new chapter of your life.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: No, it is not. Members of NSICOP, under the act, include representatives from all recognized parties in the other house and three senators from the Senate. The Prime Minister put in place a change in the way in which senators are appointed and indeed in the conception of the Senate as an independent chamber of sober second thought. Senators are chosen for NSICOP based upon the needs of the committee and other criteria relevant to the work of the committee. It is neither in the act nor necessarily in the conception of an independent senator that seats are reserved for or otherwise allocated to particular groups.

Senator Plett: Senator Gold, this happened on Friday. I’m sure you were well aware that I was going to ask you this question today. I think it would be very shallow for you to say that you did not anticipate this question. You may not have been advised, but why wouldn’t you pick up the telephone and call and ask?

When Minister Mendicino was in our chamber here a week ago, I asked him about NSICOP vacancies, and he said:

. . . I do agree that it needs to have broad representation as was originally envisioned when we set up this committee.

I guess by now we should know better than to put any faith in what Minister Mendicino has to say. Leader, the Prime Minister appointed two senators to NSICOP — two from the same caucus and two that he appointed to the Senate. How is that broad representation as Minister Mendicino said? If the Prime Minister is intent on excluding the official opposition — as he has done for some years now — from the remaining Senate seat on NSICOP, then isn’t that further confirmation that he will do anything to hide the truth about Beijing’s interference?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I’m not in a position to answer that specifically, but I will certainly bring that to the attention of the minister. However, I will underline nonetheless that not only our Constitution but also our Human Rights Act and general jurisprudence that have evolved under the equality of rights provisions both in federal and provincial legislations are increasingly understood to prohibit such forms of discrimination. Thank you for the question. I will bring it to the attention of the minister.

Senator Batters: There was not even close to an answer there. But wait, there is more. The special rapporteur’s entourage has grown even bigger and more expensive. To counter questions about his close ties to Prime Minister Trudeau, Trudeau Foundation member Johnston hired another Trudeau Foundation alumnus, Frank Iacobucci, to give him an independent legal opinion. And, wouldn’t you know it, Iacobucci works at the Torys law firm too?

The Special Rapporteur has also employed the elite public relations firm Navigator, which specializes in crisis communications. And since that wasn’t enough pricey public relations help, Johnston hired another communications company, RKESTRA, for media relations support. I wonder which of his high-priced help advised Johnston to leave the words “Trudeau Foundation” out of his 55-page report.

Senator Gold, instead of spending all this taxpayers’ money trying to crisis-manage his way out of the mess Prime Minister Trudeau created, when will his Special Rapporteur listen to the people of Canada, as expressed by the majority of MPs, and step down?

Senator Gold: Clearly, the leadership that is being expressed in the other place has found its echo chamber here in this chamber.

The fact is the government remains confident in the former Governor General, and the continued attempts to impugn his integrity and to divert attention from the real problems that Canadians are facing, whether it is the wildfires that are ravaging the country, people who are dislocated from their homes or the economic issues Canadians are facing, are a regrettable example of misplaced priorities.

Senator Plett: Leader, how much will food bank usage increase in the city of Ottawa, the province of Manitoba and everywhere else in Canada because of the Prime Minister’s carbon taxes and tax on taxes? Do you know, Senator Gold? Do you even care?

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, the Senate agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Senator Batters: Yes.

[Translation]

Senator Batters: We’re presenting it today because this issue has been before the Senate for a while, but we wanted to make sure that this report, with some smaller changes, is handled before the end of this month. This amendment is necessary to clarify that the rule that is being amended here can’t be used to allow a senator to demand to use hybrid to access a committee or chamber. They do have to be in Ottawa. So it just makes that clarification.

Senator Wallin: This is absolutely something that we should do. I live in a rural community filled with farmers. I have this discussion on a daily basis. They bring me their bills with the costs to dry their grain and heat their barns; it is quite staggering. We all think about it in terms of what it means when we go to the pumps to fill up, and the gas is slightly more expensive, and then the home heating bill comes — it is impacting everybody, of course. However, they have such a crucial role in our economy. You heard the numbers in terms of the contribution to the Saskatchewan economy, and that filters out. We have farmers everywhere across this country — producers of all kinds, ranchers, fruit farmers and the whole list.

Yes, I think this is crucial — the food inflation issue is huge, and the increases are massive. I was listening to a Saskatchewan farmer on an open-line radio show, and he said that while he was growing up, he was told that it was their job to feed the world — and that’s what they did. They called themselves “the breadbasket of the world.” This has all been exacerbated because of what is happening in Ukraine. They supply a lot of food, which they will not be able to do now. It is even more incumbent on us to try to fill that gap. The Saskatchewan farmer was wistful as he spoke, and he said, “This is what I was taught. I’m a farmer’s son, I’m a farmer and my son will be a farmer. It is my job to feed the world. Please just let me do my job.” That’s how he put it. It was quite powerful because that’s all they are asking to do.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

Senator Galvez: I tried to answer a similar question the other day, and I was shut down. We don’t want to hear some things. There are two issues. There is the technical issue — the content — which, of course, your bill is trying to address and is essential and important. We cannot move any further with reconciliation and call it an inclusive society if we don’t take care of this discriminated group of people. At the same time, there are these procedural things in the rules; some rules are very clear and others are less clear. There is opacity in how decisions are made. I’m sorry that this bill is taking time to be sent to committee. I have tried to seek the answers to why some decisions are made in a confidential way and not open to the public, because every decision that we take in this chamber should be public because 100% of our activity is public affairs. I hope that answers your question. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wells, seconded by the Honourable Senator Batters, for the second reading of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you.

So on air transportation, four senators at $16,000 each, is it business class or economy class?

Senator Black: I’ve already instructed our clerk to seek out premium economy, if that’s the best way we can go. We were instructed by the Internal Economy Committee what the maximum allotment is, but were asked to please try to do less. So the senators travelling will travel, if we can, on premium economy, unless they choose to upgrade on their own points or dime.

Senator Plett: Thank you. I’m not a lawyer, but I think that most lawyers don’t ask questions that they don’t know the answers to. I may be asking that kind of question.

You alluded to Senator Dalphond being on the Internal Economy Committee. If I recall correctly, he may also have been at the meeting of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets where this started. But he is certainly a member of the Internal Economy Committee, and he has attended some of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates meetings as well where these issues are discussed.

Senator Black, my question is this: What if we do not approve of this in short order? Much of what you are trying to do can be achieved by booking tickets and hotel rooms in advance. The longer we wait, the more difficult that will become. If somebody should suddenly, in a foolhardy move, try to adjourn this debate tonight, that may only delay your ability to obtain tickets and save the 35% that you are required to save. Would I be correct in, at least, part of that assumption?

Senator Black: Senator Plett, thank you for your question. You are absolutely correct; we have five weeks before we depart. We need to proceed with booking the tickets and accommodations. Every day that passes, this will become more expensive. We know that — that’s a general rule of thumb.

Senator Housakos: Senator Omidvar, I appreciate, all of a sudden, the concern that we have in this chamber, and, of course, our side will respect and support your motion; it’s common sense.

But I would also like to see more consistency when it comes to human rights and not cherry-picking. I also want to make sure that the government that represents this Parliament and this country also has the courage to stand up and call out Iran when they invest in Hezbollah and when they do what they do so despicably in Lebanon, in Gaza and all around the world. It’s not enough to have a navel-gazing motion and just call on the government to list them. We’ve been calling on this government to list them since 2015. What we’d really like to see is the government leader get up in the chamber and say that we will do it. I’d like the government leader to get up in the chamber as representative of this institution and tell the government you represent to list the IRGC, and do it now. You have a moral obligation. Until we start doing stuff like that, I think I’m a little bit skeptical about the intention of many of these motions — when they happen and the way they happen.

We’ve now had eight years of a government that has been soft on human rights and has been soft on Iran. Just a few weeks ago, I asked about a news story we saw in the Canadian news about family members and friends of the ayatollah and the regime in Iran living in Toronto. They’re living off the proceeds of that regime, and they’re living here freely — no Magnitsky sanctions. None of the laws we have in this country are holding these authoritarians and their friends and family to account. Colleagues, you were there when I asked the question, and you can pull them out in the transcripts. I got less than acceptable answers from the government leader, and, of course, we never get acceptable answers from the government. They keep telling us it’s complicated.

I can go on and on, but it’s a little bit late, and I know everyone is tired. All I will say is that, of course, we Conservatives support the motion. We have been consistent now for two decades when it comes to condemning the IRGC. We’ve never wavered. When Mr. Harper was in government, he took concrete actions. He did it in the international arena. He was never afraid to do so. He was never afraid of the consequences and blowback, and we currently have a government that is afraid to call out Beijing. For about two years in 2016-17, they were actually giving us a lecture in diplomacy — ready to reopen embassies in Iran. These are all facts. I’m not making it up, and you all know it.

Let’s move this motion. It deserves to pass, Senator Omidvar, but colleagues, let’s also make sure that, going forward, human rights is something we defend morning, noon, evening and all the time. It’s our obligation as a nation.

Thank you.

Senator Dasko: I will.

Senator Dasko: Senator Omidvar, that is an excellent question. I don’t have a great answer because I have not studied this in an international scene. But I think everybody in this room is aware of the battles and struggles, especially between our municipalities and our provincial governments.

In our chamber, we have municipal politicians, former mayors and those who have been intimately involved with municipal politics, and they have worked these corridors. They know what the issues are, and these are truly difficult issues to deal with.

My point here is you can win if you get along with the other levels of government. You don’t have to fight them. It can be a win-win game. When I see politicians, for example, federal and provincial, in the province of Ontario, they can get along quite well, or they can fight. It depends on the political situation, but I’ve noticed that it is possible for the two levels to get along very well, and that is to the benefit of everybody, including them.

We’re not going to change the constitutional situation of this country with respect to jurisdiction. I think we’re stuck with what we have, but we can do a much better job, and I think that’s the point I would like to make. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)