Senator Gold: Of course, I’ll add that to my list of questions for the minister.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, but I’m not in a position to answer it. The government takes any allegations of this nature seriously and will do whatever is necessary to protect Canadians from malfeasance.

Senator Cormier: Thank you for that answer, which is already in the public domain.

I see that the CRTC can be composed of a maximum 13 members appointed by the Governor-in-Council. However, it currently has only eight members. Why not appoint more advisers to achieve better francophone minority representation?

Senator Gold: I’d like to point out that the CRTC chair, the two vice-chairs and certain regional commissioners, including the new commissioner for Ontario, are either bilingual or working on becoming bilingual.

As a reminder, section 41 of the Official Languages Act specifically requires the CRTC to ensure that positive measures are taken to promote the vitality of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada.

[English]

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for your answer. I trust that our entrepreneurs are happy with this decision. I hope that is also the case among francophone entrepreneurs outside Quebec, who will soon have a larger pool of francophone candidates thanks to your new francophone immigration targets, which will be increased from 6% to 8% by 2026. The vitality of our francophone community depends on it.

How do you explain the decision to stop at 8% when some organizations were calling for a target of 12%?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The government is committed to ensuring the long-term strength and growth of francophone communities outside Quebec. That’s why the government is setting ambitious goals to support francophone minority communities and will continue to work closely with community stakeholders to support francophone minority communities across Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I received a notice from the Government Representative in the Senate, who requests, pursuant to rule 4-3(1), that the time provided for the consideration of Senators’ Statements be extended today for the purpose of paying tribute to the Honourable Ian Shugart, whose death occurred on October 25, 2023.

I remind senators that pursuant to our rules, each senator will be allowed only 3 minutes and they may speak only once, and that the time for tributes should not exceed 15 minutes.

Senator Downe: Thank you very much, and as always, Senator Cormier, that was a very informative and interesting speech. We have come to expect nothing less from you over the years.

I’m interested, though, in your analysis of the power transfer. My understanding is that transferring the power doesn’t compel the federal government to spend the money; it gives them the option if they so choose. And the reason — and I hate to raise this late on a Thursday afternoon — is this is part of the Confederation Bridge and Champlain Bridge problem over the years that I’ve been involved in. My research indicates that this goes back to 1886 when there was a dike in Montreal that the federal government used, but they declined to fund the actual construction afterwards. Then, of course, we have the Confederation Bridge, and the Champlain Bridge, in particular, falls under this category, as well.

My understanding is that the government can fund, but is not required to fund. Is that your understanding?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I’m not in the Prime Minister’s head and I have no comments to make about the suggestions that everyone is free to make in a free and democratic society. Canada, the Prime Minister and this government are managing their relationship with the United States well and will continue to do so.

Senator Plett: Well, you’re right, and we are doing a job. You’re doing your job, leader; you’re here. You show up and attend Question Period. Your boss was in West Block yesterday, and couldn’t be bothered to go downstairs to answer questions in the House.

You may have noticed, leader, that it has been lightly snowing on and off in Ottawa over the last few days, and that hasn’t escaped Senator Downe’s notice. Senator Downe thinks the Prime Minister could be gone by February. Senator Gold, why wait? Why doesn’t he just go now?

Senator Gold: I’m sure that the Prime Minister is waiting with bated breath for suggestions from others as to what he should do. I don’t mean to be sarcastic, and it’s no disrespect to the right of all of us to express ourselves. But, snow or no snow, my understanding is that this government remains focused on the work that they are required to do — which they are continuing to do for Canadians.

Senator Cormier: Yes.

Senator Gignac: Thank you, Senator Gold. Given that the Minister of Finance will be meeting with her provincial and territorial counterparts tomorrow, wouldn’t it be a good opportunity to discuss the possibility of a dual mandate approach to these Canada Pension Plan investment funds, as is the case in Quebec with the Caisse de dépôt et placement? That is one of the recommendations in the most recent report of the Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy. Could we look into the possibility of a dual mandate to simulate economic development, as is the case in Quebec?

Senator Martin: The fact is that millions of taxpayers’ dollars are spent each year on the access to information system that this government routinely violates. They are just not worth the cost. In any government, the tone is set from the top. If the Prime Minister’s Office wouldn’t provide all relevant documents to the RCMP regarding the SNC-Lavalin scandal, why should public servants worry about breaking Canada’s transparency laws every day?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I do believe that the challenges to full compliance are multi-faceted, and, with respect, I am not prepared to accept the characterization or the linkage that you made in your question. The fact is that more work needs to be done, more resources are being placed and progress needs to be made.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Good afternoon, honourable senators. My colleagues in the Canadian Senators Group and I were deeply saddened by the passing of Senator Shugart. I had the privilege to speak with him on several occasions, including over this summer. We discussed governments’ use of omnibus bills. He provided wise counsel and keen insight into the relationship between the executive and the legislative branches. This conversation, and others, were always rich, thoughtful and with action-oriented alternatives to consider.

His final words to me were ones of encouragement, and came at a time when he was in his final days. How extraordinary he was to bravely and relentlessly continue to pursue his service to Canada as long as he possibly could. When I think of public service and duty, I will always think of Ian.

His contribution to the Senate, while only for a brief time, was the tip of a great iceberg of what Senator Shugart could and would have given us if he’d had the chance.

We will greatly miss Ian. Our deepest condolences to his family, his staff and his friends.

After he took his oath as senator on that first day, I said in my welcome remarks that Senator Shugart was telling new Parliaments the following during his tenure as the Clerk of the Privy Council, and I think it’s worth repeating here as a message from him to us. He said:

Never ever lose that sense of expectancy that brought you here. That sense of purpose that brought you here. That flame should never go out. . . . We are here for a time and a purpose, and that purpose is the institutions and the public welfare. We’re holders of an amazing privilege — to be responsible, to be representative of the public interest.

For our dear friend and colleague Ian, his flame may have gone out, but we continue to serve as the holders of this amazing privilege, and we shall do so in his honour. Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, with great sadness, I also rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend and a colleague, the Honourable Ian Shugart.

Ian liked to remind me that he was the only deputy minister whom our leader, Pierre Poilievre, ever had when he was a minister. Our time goes back to the days of my good friends Jake Epp, Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark.

I know we say this often when someone passes, but with regard to our friend Ian, the words were never truer: He left us too soon. Too soon because he was loved as a husband, a father, a family member and a friend. Too soon because he was a man of integrity with a depth of experience and knowledge, and yet a man of great humility. Too soon because he was a man with immense wisdom and significant experience that would have enriched our discussions and deliberations in this chamber.

When Ian Shugart gave his maiden speech in this chamber last June, we did not know that it would also be his farewell speech. His words were not addressed to the nation, nor to the Prime Minister, nor to any political party. They were addressed to us. He challenged us, each and every one of us, to be at our best and to exercise restraint. Allow me to read just a few lines from his speech when he said:

Canada is facing great challenges on many fronts: social justice, environmental crises and major economic and international security threats. To survive these realities, let alone thrive, we have to be at our best. The alternative is mediocrity. . . .

Canada is a big, diverse country — geographically, socially, culturally, economically and philosophically. For each of us, for parties and for institutions, restraint may begin with acknowledging that our point of view — legitimate as it is — is not the only point of view.

We have benefited from restraint in this country, and, in these times, we need it again. May we all find it within ourselves to practise restraint.

May Senator Shugart’s remarks be an inspiration to me, for all of us, to be at our best so that Canada not only survives but thrives. May we, too, live our lives with humility and integrity, as Ian did. May we, too, run our race well and finish strong, as he did.

Ian shared with me personally that he had hoped to have more time with us in this chamber, but as a man with deep faith in his God and his Saviour, he only wanted God’s will for his life, and he would accept that with no complaint.

Today, Ian is home in the arms of Jesus, but his loss is felt among all of us. I extend my heartfelt condolences on behalf of not only myself but our Conservative caucus to his wife Linda, his children Robin, James and Heather and to his entire family. May God strengthen all who are grieving his departure.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today on behalf of the Progressive Senate Group to join other senators in paying tribute to the late Honourable Ian Shugart. It was only just over a year ago that we rose to welcome him to this place, and it still feels both surreal and unfair that we are now speaking of him in memoriam.

Upon his appointment as Clerk of the Privy Council, it was noted that he “. . . has rarely made headlines during his long tenure in government, and is a careful, thoughtful speaker.” Though he did indeed work admirably and quietly behind the scenes for most of his career, it was certainly headline news when we learned of his passing.

As a man who truly embodied what it means to be a public servant, the outpouring of tributes to him in the past week have had a definite theme, highlighting his devotion to service, his wit and wisdom and certainly his kindness and grace.

I would like to quote from one such tribute:

The fact that few knew that Ian Shugart was a regular gospel preacher in many Ottawa churches leads to a fitting way to describe the man. Ian rose to be the head of Canada’s public service, some 300-thousand people strong. He was a quick mind with steady judgement and an observer of character. He was cautious, wise, and thorough—a model public servant. . . . In the most straightforward way, he got to the heart of things. He had an eye for things that matter to the heart without losing sight of the job at hand.

Honourable colleagues, as we’ve already heard, back in June, we were treated to what seems like a fairly characteristic speech from Senator Shugart — his first and only intervention in this chamber. He chose his words and opportunity wisely, and I dare say he caught our attention and left a lasting impression.

He said:

Honourable senators, whether it is what we say to or about each other, or how we learn again to listen and dialogue with others who don’t share our outlook, or how we guard the health of our institutions — we need to relearn the virtue of restraint.

What a legacy Ian Shugart will have left in his short tenure here if we can all heed those words.

It is a tremendous shame that he did not get the chance to participate more fully in the Senate’s work — a loss we will certainly all feel deeply. Still, I am grateful for the short time that he spent in this chamber.

On behalf of the Progressive senators, I offer my sincere condolences to his wife, Linda; his children, Robin, James and Heather; and all the family and friends who feel this loss so deeply. May he rest in peace.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.