Senator Seidman: Thank you, senator. It’s hard to narrow down to one miss. As I said, the most important question is: Will this design reach the kids it needs to reach, and will it really improve dental care for these children?

That’s the bottom-line question. That’s the question that senators in committee and in the chamber have to ask when they look at the design of this program. It’s not a program, really.

Senator M. Deacon: With that in mind — and I’m trying to think of some of the other work we have been doing where we’re saying, “Does it do what it means to do? Is it set up to be successful?” — in regard to the review process, what would you see, then, as meaningful, purposeful and knowing that it’s making a difference? What would that look like to you?

Senator Gold: I appreciate that, and I apologize that I misunderstood the question. I’ll have to inquire about the dates, Senator Marshall. I’ll try to get an answer as quickly as possible.

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader in the Senate, Senator Gold. Over the last several weeks, we have found out that China’s Communist regime has been operating police stations right across Canada, and at least three that we know of in Toronto. Of course we know that, government leader, because the Communist regime has publicly bragged — imagine, they’ve publicly bragged — about how they’ve “convinced” many Canadians of Chinese descent to return to China to face these trumped-up charges.

Of course, I use the word “convinced” in quotation marks because we know what “convinced” means: They’re returning because of threats to the safety of their loved ones who remain in China. This is especially concerning in light of the Chinese Communist Party’s increasingly aggressive use of their national security law to reach beyond China’s borders when dealing with these centres.

Senator Gold, why is your government allowing this activity on Canadian soil? I know the RCMP has launched an investigation into these police stations, but why is it even necessary? Why hasn’t your government shut them down already and, more importantly, called in the Chinese ambassador once and for all?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Would Senator Yussuff take a question?

Senator Yussuff: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Special Report of the Auditor General of Canada, pursuant to the Auditor General Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-17, sbs. 8(2).

Senator Marshall: Yes. What I was looking for, Senator Gold, is when will I get the Departmental Results Reports? I’m reviewing the public accounts, but I need the results reports to see — you match up the performance with the actual money that was spent. So that’s what I’m looking for: a date.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Marshall, for your kind words. The public accounts in 2020-21, indeed, were tabled within legislative timelines. But as the honourable senator would know, and colleagues as well, I hope, over more than the last decade, in cases of a fall election, public accounts typically are tabled in December. This year, the public accounts were also revised due to a court decision on September 29. I am assured that the Auditor General reviewed the revision, and maintained an unmodified opinion.

My understanding, senator, is that the government is tracking to table the public accounts this fall.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer, Chairof the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, November 1, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

SEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 22, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

MOBINA S. B. JAFFER

Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 989.)

Senator Gold: No, I don’t think Canada is turning its back. It is always a matter of ongoing consideration and review as to what the right number and profile of newcomers are. I think that Canada’s record is an exemplary one. Again, without burdening the chamber with more facts and figures, the government continues to invest significant resources to make sure that those who do come — along with partnership, by the way, of the provinces, territories, municipalities and non-profits — are integrated as quickly and fully into Canadian society as possible.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Colleagues, we have five senators and 13 minutes left. We will proceed with one question per senator, and if there is time, we’ll go back for a second question.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I confess that my remarks may display a small amount of impatience, and I apologize in advance for that. I have a short speech, and I will come at it through the side door, I think. I hear some of you saying, “Oh, no, not again.”

I understand that there’s a rule in the Senate that senators are not allowed to use props. I want to respect that rule, but I hope that it does not extend to describing a prop that one would have used had one been allowed to use it.

The prop I would have liked to have brought to this topic is a sweatshirt that I own. I wish I had worn it today. On the sweatshirt is written a short, pithy sentence from the judgment of a famous English judge, Lord Denning. Your Honour, you and I and nearly everybody who has studied law has encountered Lord Denning.

The sentence to which I am referring, and which appears on my sweatshirt, is from an old English court case decided in 1954. The case was called Marsden v. Regan. Lord Denning began his judgment with the following sentence, which appears on my sweatshirt: “This case ought to have been simple, but the lawyers have made it complicated.”

Some of you are thinking that this could apply to a lot of things about lawyers, not just court cases.

In a small way, I think it applies to the present state of Bill S-236 and our current situation. To be blunt about it, this issue ought to have been simple but I fear we senators have made it complicated.

Here is my point: The Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee did a conscientious study of Bill S-236. The committee’s work was reported to the Senate. Subsequent to that, or during that process, new information came to light, as has been shared with us, regarding the financial implications of the bill that suggested it required further consideration. The committee agrees. Given that the bill has created some interest and concern in some constituencies, most notably in the circumstances of low-income Prince Edward Islanders, it seems incumbent upon us to send the bill back to the committee for further consideration — in light of all of the circumstances — to hear from appropriate witnesses and have the committee report back to the Senate in a timely fashion. I hope we will act in this way.

As I am trying to honour the sentiment of the prop that I was unable to wear today, that’s all I have to say. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Patterson, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the second reading of Bill S-212, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation.

Senator Seidman: Absolutely.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. You raised some really interesting questions as you finished off your speech.

As you were speaking and covering a number of things, I was wondering, as we are preparing for it going to committee, if you had to pick one key miss or one key concern — because you do have a number there that you thought through — is there one particular item that you would say, “This is where we need to get it right at committee?”

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Yes please, if I may.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Deacon, you have a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: The senator only has a minute left, Senator Plett. Perhaps, Senator McCallum, would you like to ask for five minutes to answer a question?

Senator McCallum: Yes, please.

Senator McCallum: Yes, I would.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Will you take a question, senator?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Omidvar, do you wish to answer a question?