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

Senator Manning: Yes, Your Honour.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Omidvar: Always.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I wonder if I could ask a question.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.” The sitting is suspended until 8 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

(2000)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Manning, seconded by the Honourable Senator Batters, for the second reading of Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.

Hon. David M. Wells: My questions were asked by Senators Wallin and Deacon. I withdraw.

Senator Manning: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Manning is out of time again.

Senator Manning, are you asking for more time?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, April 28, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology in relation to its study on the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention be extended from December 16, 2022, to February 28, 2023.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for his question.

The government has implemented plans and strategies to fight gender-based violence and violence against women. It is working on developing a national action plan to hopefully put an end to gender-based violence.

The government has also invested money in more than 1,200 front-line organizations providing essential services to survivors of gender-based violence. In Budget 2021, the government built on this work by investing more than $3 billion over five years to advance these initiatives.

There are several ways to address this significant, tragic and unacceptable problem. The government continues to work on this issue.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Housakos: I agree it’s illegal and highly inappropriate, and I’m glad the RCMP is doing what they’re doing. But why isn’t your government doing what all other Five Eyes nations are doing, such as giving them more legislative tools and authority from their parliaments and congresses, to make sure this is dealt with?

Senator Gold, do you remember the expression, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”? Doesn’t that matter anymore? There are many Canadians of Chinese descent living in this great country who deserve to live in peace, freedom and safety.

Why does your government not care enough about them to afford them protection from the Communist regime of China? Why is your government aiding and abetting those thugs? Why doesn’t your government take action?

At the end of the day, we’ve seen on a number of occasions how the Communist regime tries to intimidate parliamentarians in this Parliament. We’ve seen it in the past, where the Chinese ambassador has attempted to intimidate. Now we see them intimidating Canadians of Chinese descent on our soil.

I’m glad the government is concerned, and I’m glad you’re happy the RCMP is investigating, but what is this government doing in terms of tools to get to the bottom of this issue?

Senator Patterson: Senator Omidvar, thank you for your speech. I have a bit of experience with special committees because Senator Watt and I managed to engineer a special committee through the Senate on the Arctic. The question then was — and I’m not at all speaking against your motion — are the resources available to add a committee? Are the support services available, and is there time in the schedule?

I just wondered if you have had a chance to explore that with the Senate.

Hon. Colin Deacon: Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for your speech and sponsorship of this work. You don’t need to convince me for a second about the importance of dental care. I worked in the field for a number of years. When I got this job four and a half years ago, it was the first time in my life that I had dental benefits. It’s a privilege too many Canadians can’t get.

I am worried about the accusations of fraud more than anything, so I would like to just ask: Has there been a consideration? For two years, I’ve been working with CRA to help them correct a problem they made. Their administrative capacity is very limited. Is there the ability for Canadians to upload their receipt? That would limit the pool of those where an audit would be required. I just think having that capacity — has that been considered? If not, would you please make sure it’s considered during the study of the bill? I think having that in the program would limit the risk of fraud, but it would also help reduce the pool of those where an audit would have to occur in the future.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for the question. As you know, the minister has broad powers under the legislation. The minister will be before the committee. I will be honoured to raise this in terms of the capacity of CRA to upload receipts at the end of the day. It’s not currently required, but yes, it is true the minister could make a ministerial decision to alter or change the direction in regard to requiring receipts for individuals. The acknowledgment is very clearly in the legislation that audits could be conducted, and the CRA will have the authority to do so.

Hopefully I have enough time, Senator Deacon, before the minister appears before the committee. I will specifically ask the minister your point and get back to you.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, do not worry. I don’t intend to speak for 15 minutes, although I would like to provide you with some of my concerns.

First and foremost, I can certainly understand the frustration of our very competent Agriculture and Forestry Committee members who, unfortunately, at the time of their meeting on this bill in June, did not receive critical information. As of September, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, provided the financial consequences this bill would have on P.E.I.’s working poor. From my perspective, it is imperative that the members of the Agriculture Committee receive this bill and hear from the PBO. That is why I put forth the amendment.

Honourable senators, since my speech and the amendment that I made a week ago, I have received written letters on this issue. One stated that the PBO report “is untrue and, frankly, misleading.” Another one says that he agrees with the PBO report. Another letter received yesterday from a former witness of the committee says that the PBO report is “a flawed report from Ottawa.”

Colleagues, there’s an old saying that you can bring a horse to the trough, but you cannot make him drink. I believe this is the case for many — maybe too many. I don’t believe it is the case for the majority of my colleagues, though, on the Agriculture Committee.

The key element in the review is having the PBO as a witness. However, regarding the subamendment that we have before us tabled by Senator Black, what he said in his speech seems to indicate that he wishes to hear again from all the witnesses who testified last June:

It is imperative that the committee be able to hear from any relevant source with information on the matter who could inform the committee’s report on this bill. We cannot limit ourselves to just the PBO, given that the information that was released in September by their office is both new to us and to our witnesses that we heard from previously. It cannot be assumed that this information will not have an impact on their perspectives, given that we would return to this bill with the understanding that this report could change our perspectives as well.

That is fine, I would say.

At that one two-hour meeting with two panels of the Agriculture Committee, there were seven witnesses who were invited. Even at that number, I truly believe this could be achieved, even after reinviting all the witnesses in June, within, at most, one meeting for the Parliamentary Budget Officer and another meeting for two panels of seven witnesses. That’s two meetings in total.

I’m trying to understand this unlimited period of time. Honourable senators, I trust the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry will not want to delay this restudy and re-report, as they have an interesting and promising soil conservation study and report that I am also looking forward to reading.

Last but not least, honourable colleagues, I have received a letter from a witness at the June meeting of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I should also say that this letter is very adversarial to the speech I gave.

Honourable colleagues, if need be, I will again state in this house that I spent more than a week in carrying out research, and every word in that speech is accurate. I challenge anyone who wants to question any word or research in that speech.

That said, the letter from the witness says, “As an unelected senator, please do not deprive our P.E.I.-elected representative in Ottawa —” that would be the people in the other place, “— the opportunity to vote on this important issue.”

Colleagues, I raised this in my original speech, because my office did the research from 2015 to 2020. The P.E.I. representative in the other place could not vote on this issue because at no time was there a motion or a bill in the other place on which to vote.

Honourable colleagues, I trust your judgment with regard to the amendment and subamendment, and I also trust that the members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee will do the right thing for the Senate as an institution and, particularly with regard to this bill, the P.E.I. working poor who are facing a very unfortunate winter ahead. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at 15 days, but I am not ready to speak at this time. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

The Hon. the Speaker: My apologies, Senator Manning. It is now six o’clock and, pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am required to leave the chair until 8 p.m. unless there is an agreement that we not see the clock.

Is there agreement?

Senator Plett: No.