Senator Plett: What is the purpose of this Senate?

If after four months of hearing from witnesses on this issue, the Senate immediately throws in the towel as soon as the government says “no,” then we have, very simply, failed in our legislative duty, and we have failed as Canadians.

Don’t call ourselves “independent” if we are just going to roll over at the first available opportunity. That is not independence, colleagues. That is not independence.

I believe that is why we must insist on our entire amendment package.

The people whom I am most concerned about are the smaller players who will be impacted by this bill, people like Oorbee Roy, Vanessa Brousseau, Darcy Michael, Justin Tomchuk, J.J. McCullough, Frédéric Bastien Forrest, Scott Benzie and others, all of whom appeared before our committee. These people do not represent big corporations or big media concerns. I submit, colleagues, that at minimum we have an obligation to insist that this tone-deaf government listen to these individuals. Beyond that, we all know — or at least suspect — that this bill is deeply flawed and has serious freedom of speech and freedom of the press ramifications.

Given those ramifications, colleagues, we cannot now back down at the first sign that the government is not willing to take our amendments seriously.

Senator Cotter: I got the question. I’m a bit troubled that someone from your province didn’t at least celebrate my metaphor in the question. Having said that, I’m hardly an expert — may I complete the answer?

Senator Cotter: I will make two observations, if I may, Senator Housakos.

The first is that there is a very good chance that, at some point in the future, someone will make observations like you have just made, and you will respond just like I have.

My second observation is that the argument you make is premised on the idea that a continued assertion of parliamentary authority by a non-elected body is one of the ways to improve public confidence in this chamber and the institution of the Senate, and I think that’s a very debatable proposition. Thank you.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Cotter. I want to highlight that in our Constitution — in black and white — when the forefathers created this chamber, it was created with the same rights, privileges and authority of the House of Commons — the Westminster system.

The second thing we have to keep in mind, colleagues, is that when this house was created, the “Father of Confederation,” John A. Macdonald, also made it clear that this place would be an independent body from the other place. It was also made clear that this body would speak for the voices that it was felt were not being adequately spoken for in the other place.

Prime minister after prime minister — I can give umpteen examples, including former Prime Minister Chrétien and even former Prime Minister Harper, who had a hard time swallowing the legitimacy of this institution — have always said that when an elected government does something that is found to be egregious by a large number of Canadians, that is when the Senate should legitimately step in to ensure that those voices are heard.

My question is the following: When I hear your speech, I’m very concerned. If the Senate has lost a great deal of legitimacy in the eyes of the public over the last couple of decades, it is because they asked the following question: Is this institution nothing more than a glorified debating society and echo chamber?

Senator Housakos: Oh, so Senator Cordy and Senator Massicotte.

Senator Housakos: Would Senator Cotter take a question?

Senator Housakos: I will question him in private over a cup of coffee later.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, one of Canada’s greatest achievements has been our ability to create a common sense of purpose in a country that is so vast and where the north-south connections are often stronger than the pull east or west. While the phrase “land of the free” is associated with America, we too are the land of the free because of the brave, in world wars, in Korea, in Afghanistan. We mark Remembrance Day to honour those whose sacrifice gave us the freedoms we enjoy and which are envied by millions.

For new Canadians, the public swearing of the oath and citizenship ceremonies themselves are an act of commitment, of signing up to serve their new home. It is a choice often hard come by, but they show a willingness to embrace change and cold winters and new languages and some other strange rituals, many of them on ice. Try explaining curling.

Now, after 76 years, citizenship ceremonies and the public swearing of the oath will be cancelled — ironically, on July 1 — and new Canadians will simply go online and check a box. It’s a travesty. They have waited years and worked hard for the opportunity, and they are being robbed of the opportunity to affirm proudly and publicly their new-found citizenship alongside others who chose the same path. It is perhaps why they are the ones most annoyed with those who illegally jump the queue.

The oath is a meaningful step toward belonging. A meaningless online checkmark diminishes the very concept of citizenship, and it is our obligation as a country to be honest and clear about who we are.

We still think we’re the world’s peacekeepers, but lack the equipment. We’re generous with other people’s money. We don’t pay our bills at NATO. We are rule followers, even standing still at a red light at 2 a.m. on an empty street. We apologize almost as a reflex, but often that is a good thing as we reflect on the past and try hard to change today to make it better tomorrow. But tearing down statues or cancelling history or cancelling ceremonies of citizenship does a disservice to us all, including new Canadians. We owe them our truth. We are all a product of our past, for better or worse: the constant denigration of the hard work of thousands who carved out sod huts and livelihoods and survived the cruelty of winter and gave birth and raised families and grew food — people of all colours and creeds that built lives and communities and shaped this place.

Do we learn from our past? Of course, and so do newcomers. That is often why they are here: to escape tyranny, to be granted freedom of speech and thought and to embrace the comfort of safety and plenty. In the end it is about our commitment to each other as people who share common space, whether we are of a farm or of a fishing village or of a city apartment or of a First Nation.

So keep the oath and the ceremony, and perhaps we should all think about renewing our commitment to citizenship. Let’s commit to this country because Canada is a testament that change is possible.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, on April 24, I will have the distinguished pleasure of hosting a group of young leaders from Quebec for the second edition of the NextGEN Assembly of Leaders, organized by the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board and the English Montreal School Board.

It will be an exciting all-day event for 60 students who will gather in person in Ottawa to discuss legislative initiatives currently before Parliament and public policy priorities. Students from King’s-Edgehill School in Nova Scotia will also be joining us virtually.

[Translation]

These young people will have the opportunity to chat virtually with members of the Quebec National Assembly and the Nova Scotia Legislature. The organizing committee hopes to expand the scope of the third edition by inviting other school boards from across the country to participate in this important initiative.

[English]

Students will be divided into breakout groups and have a parliamentarian assigned to them. They will then be asked to research and analyze an issue of national concern currently before Parliament and tasked with coming up with solutions to some of our country’s biggest challenges.

[Translation]

I was delighted to participate in last year’s edition, which took place virtually, and I was impressed by the arguments our young people put forward and the commitment and intelligence they displayed.

[English]

This year, it will be wonderful for some of our colleagues and me to interact with these future leaders in person. I look forward to connecting with them, but, most importantly, I am mostly looking forward to hearing what these bright young minds have to say about some of the most pressing issues facing our country. I hope this immersive experience in the halls of Parliament will give them all an opportunity to further develop and expand their critical thinking and acquire some of the core skills needed to succeed in life, such as active communication, problem solving, meaningful collaboration and a commitment to global citizenship and community building.

It is so refreshing, revitalizing and inspiring to witness firsthand our nation’s youth advocate for change and share their views on the issues that matter to them. As legislators, I feel we can learn so much from them. It is important that we listen and engage with Canada’s future leaders as we legislate, deliberate and represent them in Parliament.

Honourable senators, it’ll be an honour for me to host the second edition of the NextGEN Assembly of Leaders in the Senate next week. Please join me in wishing the 60 youth leaders a most successful and enriching assembly.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable colleagues, May 1 to 7 is Mental Health Week in Canada, a time to reflect on the impact of mental health on our lives, our families, our communities and our country. Mental health is an essential component of our overall well-being, and it affects everyone in some way.

This year’s theme, “My Story,” emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and expressing our emotions, individually and collectively, and embracing our stories which mould who we are. It is a reminder that every individual has a story and caring for mental health should be treated as equally as caring for physical health.

As we recognize Mental Health Week, let us also take a moment to appreciate the efforts of mental health advocates, professionals and organizations who work tirelessly to promote mental health awareness, provide support and reduce the stigma around mental illness.

Honourable colleagues, let us continue to raise our voices to create awareness and work together to destigmatize mental health. Now more than ever, Canadians need support.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator Francis, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[Translation]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, I know you’re waiting for me to ask this in French.

My question, government leader, is a follow up to a question posed yesterday by my colleague Senator Batters regarding the appointment of Minister LeBlanc’s sister-in-law as the Interim Ethics Commissioner.

In Question Period yesterday, leader, you defended this appointment. You chastised Senator Batters for undermining the important role the Ethics Commissioner plays in our system. Not long afterwards, we learned that Minister LeBlanc’s sister-in-law had, in fact, resigned as the Interim Ethics Commissioner, effective immediately.

Stepping down was the right thing for her to do, but the Trudeau government should never have put her in this situation in the first place. The blame for undermining the role of the Ethics Commissioner falls solely on the Trudeau government.

Now that the minister’s sister-in-law has resigned, Senator Gold, do you agree there was indeed a conflict of interest?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Martin, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. No, I do not. There was an ethics screening that applied to the former interim commissioner from day one, as is the appropriate practice in such institutions in such cases.

I stand by what I said yesterday to defend her integrity, her competency and the role she was asked and agreed to play.

Now that she has decided to step aside, the government will be moving with dispatch to select a new interim commissioner. In that regard, the government will be working with all parties collaboratively to find the right person and to appoint them.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of two members from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association, Constable Michael Hunt and Constable Justin Dawe. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Wells.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association concerning the Arctic Parliamentarians Summit — Nordic and North American Collaboration Report, held in Nuuk, Greenland, from September 11 to 13, 2022.

Hon. Marty Klyne, Chair of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, presented the following report:

Thursday, April 20, 2023

The Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight has the honour to present its

SEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, which is authorized, on its own initiative, to supervise and report on the Senate’s internal and external audits and related matters, pursuant to rule 12-7(4), respectfully requests funds for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

Pursuant to Chapter 3:05, section 2(3)(b) of the Senate Administrative Rules, your committee presents herewith its budget report.

Respectfully submitted,

MARTY KLYNE

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, Appendix A, p. 1406.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!