Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Housakos, I won’t admit anything, but I will concur with you that the onus is on us to organize our work first during these three sitting days. There is more efficiency to gain there; I am sure of it. If and when so needed, it is what we do and what we have done during the intensive sessions, when we need to be there for more than three days, be it four days or five days, or when there are emergencies as well. So, yes, the onus is on us to better organize ourselves.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for the question. There is a trap in it, so I will first address the question and then the trap.

As for the question, I do agree that Motion No. 30 does not fix the problem it pretends or wants to fix. On the contrary, I believe this motion is counterproductive, because it will provide some delays that are not relevant regarding an emergency bill or a bill the government pretends is an emergency bill.

As for the trap, I would agree with you that if we use the Rules wisely, as they are written wisely, from a sober-second-thought perspective, I would say that the majority are very well thought out and do not need to be amended. However, I still believe that, given the contemporary Senate, some rules have to be updated in order to provide more fairness for all senators and all groups, and also — and I intend to be polite — to “undust” some practices that are time-consuming and that don’t have any impact on our efficiency — on the contrary.

That’s my answer.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, we have 25 seconds left and there are a few senators who wanted to ask questions, but we are nearly out of time.

Is it agreed to have additional time? It is agreed.

Senator Lankin: From my dear colleague in the GRO, yes.

Senator Boisvenu: You know that the pandemic has exacerbated mental health issues. Nine million Canadians will suffer from mental health issues over the course of their lives. In 2017, close to 5.5 million Canadians received mental health services, and, in 2020, this number reached 6 million.

Does the Government of Canada plan to bring back programs such as At Home/Chez Soi, which helped reduce re-incarceration rates among people suffering from mental health issues by 90% and which funded itself through savings resulting from this reduction? Will the government commit to bringing back this program, which delivered very good results?

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you, Senator Gagné. I would have asked you this question on the last bill too, but it zipped by a bit too quickly. How much money is involved with these supply bills, Bill C-15 and Bill C-16?

Senator Gagné: Let me go back to my notes. I wasn’t expecting any questions at this point in time.

I don’t have all those numbers at the top of my head. Supplementary Estimates (C) includes $13.2 billion for 70 organizations in voted dollars, and $3.9 billion for statutory spending. That was supplementary estimates.

For interim supply, the Main Estimates provided information for $397.6 billion in proposed spending for 126 organizations, including $190.3 billion in voted expenditures and $207.3 billion in statutory expenses.

Through this interim supply bill, we’re seeking Parliament’s approval for $75.5 billion in budgetary expenditures.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for drawing attention to my op-ed. I encourage all of you to read it for yourselves rather than rely on the caricature that he has offered.

Senator Housakos, you have been quite clear in saying that China is an authoritarian state, which I entirely agree with. You also described it as “tyrannical.” I’m not sure I would go that far, but it’s certainly a Leninist state.

I think you said that all entities in China are subject to the direct or indirect control of the Chinese state.

Let me put my question in the reverse. Can you name some legally constituted entities in the People’s Republic of China that would not fall under the definition of directly or indirectly controlled or influenced by the Chinese state and therefore would not be subject to registration under this bill?

Senator Housakos: You’re using an extreme case, Senator Woo. We’re not talking about holding accountable people who are promoting cultural exchanges. I can tell you that the Chinese community in Canada does not need any help from the Chinese republic in order to promote Chinese culture and Canadian-Chinese culture. They can do it on their own very well.

That is not at all the essence of this bill. The essence of this bill is very simple. When you have organizations that are funded directly by Beijing, which are here promoting the agenda of that tyrannical organization to government agencies, to our institutions — particularly in commerce, trade, science, technology, energy sectors — those are the ones that are of serious concern when it comes to dealing with this issue, Senator Woo.

Trying to muddy the waters and justify the unjustifiable isn’t right and isn’t appropriate.

Senator Woo: If I could follow up again, your non-answer would seem to suggest that the cultural organization would, in fact, be covered under the registry, even though you said it would not be in your speech. Presumably, other organizations, such as alumni associations, sporting groups, municipalities, again under the direct or indirect control of the state, would have to be registered if an individual representing that entity were to speak to a parliamentarian or indeed with a senior official.

In that situation, where essentially every legally constituted entity in the People’s Republic of China would have to be registered under this act, would you not agree that the assertion of the two authors in the op-ed about the circulated “disinformation” in text messages and WeChat posts saying that many entities and individuals associated with China would be targeted under Mr. Kenny Chiu’s failed bill was in fact accurate?

Senator Housakos: Senator Woo, my answer is very clear. If you have any organizations funded by Beijing that are active on Canadian soil, they are going to be obligated to register. Absolutely. That’s what this bill is saying. I’m not disagreeing with it. That’s really the objective of the bill at the end of the day. However, it doesn’t target Canadian-Chinese cultural organizations that are active on Canadian soil.

My point is exactly that. We do not need Beijing and their money in order to be infiltrating Canadian-Chinese cultural organizations. That is precisely part of the point and part of this exercise we’re going through. Beijing should be worrying about promoting their own cultural activities at home as we are preoccupied with promoting our own cultural and multicultural activities in Canada with our Canadian citizens. That’s really the objective of this bill. I don’t see where you’re lacking an answer to your question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Housakos, as I see more senators rising, you have, as acting leader, unlimited time. Do you wish to continue to answer questions?

Hon. Victor Oh: Thank you, Senator Housakos. Would you take a question?

Senator Oh: You talked about former MP Kenny Chiu. I think there is a lot of misinformation. I would like to correct it. I know Kenny Chiu well. I flew to Vancouver to support him during the election. After being elected, I saw he was going bizarre, acting in a different way. After that, he is a Minister of Foreign Affairs. I told Kenny Chiu that you have to work for your community, your constituents; you are elected by Canadians, and you are supposed to work for Canadians, and not Foreign Affairs. I warned him many times, including through the intern who worked for me and went to help him, and I told him to carry the message to Vancouver.

I said, “Now you are claiming that you have Chinese agent influence that sabotaged you.” I said that’s not true. Ms. Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Vancouver by the government. You would stand a good chance to be re-elected, but he chose to jump to a different way, and I warned him, and finally, enough. So what happened to the result?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Oh?

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, last week the Inter‑Parliamentary Union held its 144th Assembly in Nusa Dua, Indonesia, bringing together 110 national parliaments under the theme “Getting to zero: Mobilizing parliaments to act on climate change.”

In a unified voice, the IPU adopted the Nusa Dua Declaration recognizing the urgent need to address the climate crisis. It outlined the national actions parliaments need to take to implement the Paris Agreement, including accelerating the transition to clean energy, ensuring the inclusion of marginalized members of society, and enhancing global cooperation for joint climate solutions.

I quote Mr. Duarte Pacheco, member of Parliament for Portugal and President of the IPU:

The time to act is now. Time is running out. Scientists and researchers from all over the world have documented what has been described as an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership. This 144th Assembly must mobilize all parliamentarians. We must lead by example and take resolute action before it is too late. Fellow parliamentarians, let us not fail our citizens and the young generation, who have placed their trust in us!

Colleagues, I echo this call to you. How can we hear the unified voices of scientists, citizens and true leaders across the world warning us of imminent and irreversible catastrophes and do little, or worse, put barriers to effective and necessary climate action to protect our people — Canadians?

In this Senate, there are important initiatives that address the climate crisis and the Senate’s very own carbon footprint. I encourage you all to join the IPU of which you are, I’m sure, a member and join fellow parliamentarians across the world in not only advocating but implementing real climate actions through these and many other initiatives.

Canadians are begging Parliament to be a vessel for action, to become true leaders and to lead by example.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize and congratulate my colleague and dear friend Senator Salma Ataullahjan who received one of Pakistan’s most prestigious civic awards, the Sitara-e-Pakistan. Recipients of this award are recognized for their contributions to Pakistan’s society and culture as well as the promotion of world peace.

Senator Ataullahjan worked with polio programs, refugees and female parliamentarians. She also travelled when floods ravaged her own province. Canada was part of the recovery program.

Senator Ataullahjan was awarded the Sitara-e-Pakistan award on August 14, 2020, but due to the pandemic was unable to travel to Pakistan in person to receive this prestigious award on Pakistan Resolution Day.

On the morning of March 23 of this year, Senator Ravalia and I proudly joined her at the High Commission of Pakistan in Ottawa for the award ceremony. It was an honour to attend and recognize Senator Ataullahjan for her significant contributions toward international diplomacy, natural disaster relief, humanitarian aid and the promotion of Canada-Pakistan relations.

Colleagues, please join me in congratulating Senator Ataullahjan for her noteworthy impacts on South Asia.

Thank you.

Hon. Diane Bellemare, Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, presented the following report:

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament has the honour to present its

FIRST REPORT

Pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), your committee recommends that the Rules of the Senate be amended:

“Election of the Speaker pro tempore

Process of election

Term of office of Speaker pro tempore

Subsequent sessions

Your committee also notes that any system established under these new rules should ensure that the secrecy of all senators’ ballots, as provided for in new rule 2-4(1), is fully respected.

Respectfully submitted,

DIANE BELLEMARE

Chair

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, in January, the Federal Court of Appeal made a historic decision by supporting francophones in British Columbia in restoring the full force of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. However, the government does not support this ruling and is calling for a stay of the decision. In fact, the Liberal government wants to take francophones to court to challenge the decision. This ruling on Part VII affects all francophone minority communities in Canada.

Why is this government planning to turn its back on francophones instead of supporting them in this historic win?