Senator Richards: Thank you.

Although I am the critic on this particular Senate bill, I will be very brief. I tend to support it. It’s Senator Housakos’ bill.

Honourable senators, I suppose a nation must have some kind of moral force in order to remain a nation. That is a force independent enough to stand for its own principles, no matter the consequences, from those who would in some way wish to do us injury or harm. What we must also realize is that there are countries quite willing to take advantage and do us harm, and we must be vigilant in knowing this.

For a nation is beset at times both inside its borders, with discontent, and beyond its borders, with enmity. To ignore this is to open one’s nation to internal displeasure and external attacks. I believe what is being asked with this bill is simply to decide whether we have a country which needs protection from outside forces — nothing more and nothing less. But in Canada today, it seems a very difficult question for some reason.

Would we let a neighbour come into our house and compromise or threaten our family? In the most basic sense, this is the question being asked, and in the most basic sense, this is what has happened to our country in the last few years.

I think a foreign registry is not a harsh thing to request and not an unreasonable position to take. To protect one’s citizens, one must be conscious that those citizens have every right to be protected from predatory influence. Nor is it unreasonable to say that neglecting this obligation on even a small level is to neglect the duty to our citizens that our country has pledged by the very fact that it is a country, with its own constitution, borders and laws.

I suppose it depends on what country we want and what standards we demand of ourselves. So we might ask: If we are floundering in an abyss of modified standards, if our ships are behind schedule today, if our planes are years out of date, if our men and women in uniform — as brave and competent as they are and always were — do not amount to one division, and if our obligation to NATO is at its lowest ebb, do we answer that this is true? And if we do, then what does that say about us as a nation or a people?

Perhaps it says that we have little notion of what obligates a citizenry to their nation or to the greater world, to the allies who continually rely upon us. And are those at the gates willing to do us ill? We might ask this.

A foreign registry for those who work on behalf of a foreign government is both sane and practical and is practised in countries where those who do work on behalf of other nations are held accountable for what they do. I don’t think this is a terrible thing, nor is it a racist policy. It is a sane practice to keep one’s nation and its people safe from foreign bellicosity.

If national protection of our own citizenry is horrid against China or other nations, then why do China and other nations have it against so many others?

Canadian officialdom is filled with the impractical idea that the best way to fix any given crisis is by never responding to it in a timely fashion. I believe over the last number of years, more than a few nations have relied upon this aberration. It is evident in the North, within sight of our own borders, and, at times, off the Atlantic coast with other fishing fleets.

But I will come back to the first point: We have to decide if we are a country and not a post-nation nation. It is as simple and as profound and as existential as that. If we are a nation, then we must be vigilant in honouring our commitment to it and to our people, no matter who they are or where they are from — from First Nations to French to English to Chinese to Japanese.

Please let me offer a hockey analogy. “We become a nation when we drop the puck,” I told Ron MacLean once about our hockey. That is because no one ever had to tell Canadians why they are on the ice. I wish we observed the same traits of tenacity, boldness and honour in assuming our democratic state and democratic values.

A foreign registry would simply keep in check those who work on behalf of a foreign entity. I am not saying that we treat any of them dishonourably. I’m saying if it became unjust, it would be called, and a penalty would ensue.

I will end here with a note about a battle that took place long ago. I will use it as a reminder of whom we once were. At Ypres in 1915, the first time the Germans used gas, the Canadians held their position when all around them fled. They were the only forces who would not give up the trench. They held the line. They did so because they felt they had to, and they refused to break and run. They were Canadians of all different races: Chinese, First Nations, English and French. They held their ground, as they did on Juno Beach and in Korea.

In honour of them, we should have vigilance and never give up our position or our love of country. In that regard, and in light of what has happened because of foreign meddling in the last five years, I am asking that this bill go to committee as soon as possible.

Thank you.

(Debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Brazeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).

Senator Mégie: What we realized after the study by the CCSA — and that’s why I said that this surprised more than one person — is that even though the message for some time was that red wine is good for the heart, this new paradigm flies in the face of that. We still don’t know how all this will end. Debates for and against are under way. Maybe there will be other studies or some will believe the studies that were done by the CCSA. I don’t know where this will land, but they worked very hard on the new data to come up with some real standards. I think we need to give more weight to the CCSA data. This shouldn’t stop you from having your glass of wine.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: There are some very reputable doctors in Quebec who say that these studies were poorly done and that doctors can continue to advise their patients to drink two glasses of wine. The interesting thing is that between leading experts on these issues, there seems to be a great deal of opposition.

The Hon. the Speaker: Colleagues, thank you for the warm welcome.

Before I take my seat in this chair, let me take a few minutes to say a few words to you, in the tradition of my predecessors.

I am very humbled by this appointment made by the Governor General, Her Excellency Mary Simon. I thank the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, for his confidence in me. I will do my best to prove myself worthy of his trust and to earn yours in this Senate, which we hope to be ever more open and inclusive.

The Senate has a long and inspiring history. I think it is worth taking a closer look at the list of distinguished Speakers of this august chamber.

[English]

I note, for example, our last female Speaker, the Honourable Renaude Lapointe; our last Speaker from Manitoba, the Honourable Gildas Molgat; and, more recently, the Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, the Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin, our current colleague the Honourable Leo Housakos and, of course, the Honourable George J. Furey, who has left me such large shoes to fill. I am deeply honoured to have been given the chance to join such a distinguished group of individuals and I will do everything I can to measure up to the high standards they have set.

Colleagues, in this new role, I will rely upon your cooperation, your understanding and your support. This is the house of all senators to pursue excellence in our work and to always keep a focus on the needs of the regions and the individuals whom we serve and represent and who together make Canada such a great country.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné, having taken the chair at the foot of the throne, rose and informed the Senate that a Commission had been issued under the Great Seal of Canada, appointing her Speaker of the Senate.

(The said Commission was then read by the Clerk.)

Prayers.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Gold: This government has been open and transparent with Canadians with regard to the efforts that they are making to secure our future, particularly the future of the auto sector — an important sector in Canada — in the face of the dramatically changing business environment, and capital environment, for the production of new generations of electric vehicles.

The investments that this government has made, notably in the Volkswagen battery plant and in the negotiations that are ongoing with Stellantis, are designed to ensure — for generations to come — that Canadians can have well-paying jobs and, more importantly, to secure Canada’s place in the North American supply chain for the future.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I will ensure that your concerns, which are entirely valid and legitimate, are brought to the attention of the ministers responsible.

[English]

Senator Gold: The decision whether or not to stay a particular case is in the hands of the judges who have to weigh a myriad of factors. Each case is distinct. Each case has a blend of factors which include and implicate — if that’s the neutral word — the roles of the Crown, the roles of the defence and other matters dealing with the administration of justice. It is simply important to underline that this government has confidence in the judiciary to manage these matters, consistent with their constitutional obligations for a speedy and fair trial. Again, I repeat, as for the vacant positions, the government is working diligently to fill them.

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, with amendments and observations), presented in the Senate on May 11, 2023.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Ever since we began debating this bill, I’ve been wondering about that fact that there are still some doctors in Quebec, including at the Institut de cardiologie, who say that having two glasses of wine a day is excellent for the heart. As a doctor, what do you think of this debate that seems to pit some doctors against others?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question and for the care you’ll take to prepare questions for me. I made the decision to give the speech today — it was after scroll — when it became clear that there was an opportunity to make a speech in a timely fashion.

The position of the government with regard to non-government bills is to look carefully at each and every bill. When we can support a bill, we will vote in favour, and when we can’t, we will vote against them.

With regard to whether speeches are made or not, this is a bill that the government believes is important, and I thought it would be of interest to members of the chamber to know that the government fully supports this bill. To that end, I was pleased to speak today, and I appreciate the attention that was granted to me.

With regard to your question about last week, Senator Batters, the government bill, which I was pleased to sponsor, was an important bill that had to be passed by a certain time so that Canadians could get their benefits in a timely fashion — benefits that were important to them. I made the decision in the interest of time and in collaboration and discussion with others to forego my speech so that we could make sure the bill passed and Canadians got their benefits on time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (Budget—study of issues relating to the management of Canada’s fisheries and oceans—power to travel), presented in the Senate on May 11, 2023.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I rise today to congratulate you on your appointment as the Forty-sixth Speaker of the Senate of Canada. I am confident that you will preside over this chamber with the same fairness, integrity and respect for the institution and for your colleagues that have characterized your work since you were appointed to the Senate and in your capacity as Legislative Deputy.

[English]

Speaker Gagné, you began your career teaching in a small school in rural Manitoba. You then became its principal, and before your appointment to the Senate, you capped a long and illustrious career in education as President of the Université de Saint-Boniface between 2003 and 2014.

You have also been an outstanding advocate for minority language rights, and an important representative for Franco-Manitobans and minority-language communities across the country. Your legacy is etched in your many contributions to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and to the important studies it undertook. Indeed, the first message from the other place that you will be reading today will be on Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada’s official languages. Madam Speaker, I cannot think of a more fitting message.

[Translation]

Madam Speaker, it has been a great privilege for me to work closely with you. Over the past three and a half years, I have benefited from your wise counsel and your knowledge and respect for the Senate as an institution, including as it relates to the importance of continuing our modernization efforts.

You are a trusted colleague and friend who will be missed by Senator LaBoucane-Benson and the entire team in the Government Representative Office. At the same time, I’m filled with pride and gratitude that you’ve accepted this appointment. I know the Senate is in good hands.

As the Government Representative in the Senate, I look forward to renewing our working relationship as well as working with the opposition, the various groups and all unaffiliated senators in the service of Canadians. Once again, Madam Speaker, let me offer my sincere congratulations.

[English]

Senator Plett: Colleagues, our new Speaker has demonstrated her steady hand in her previous roles as a senator and as Deputy Leader of the Government. In those roles, she has shown a level-headed yet deliberate and concise manner, and I know she will do the same as Speaker.

Madam Speaker, your calmness and sensible character make you a natural fit to be a great Speaker. I am a bit of a traditionalist — as you know and as other colleagues know — and I am always saddened when we break with tradition, which we did to some extent today. However, Madam Speaker, as I said in my congratulatory note to you on Friday, we promise to play nice and to be good for a short period of time before we will test your strength.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, the Conservative caucus and all my colleagues, we truly wish you well in your new responsibility. We look forward to working with you and with other members of this august chamber as a collaborative and congenial opposition. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Translation]

Senator Ringuette: In the interest of efficiency and to give other senators a chance to make their statements, I will be brief and will not repeat all of the good things that were said about you today.

Madam Speaker, as the Speaker pro tempore, I want to reiterate my support for you in this chamber so that we can fulfill our mandate of sober second thought for the well-being of all Canadians.

In short, Madam Speaker, as usual, we need to roll up our sleeves, particularly on Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, which I believe is necessary for our communities.

I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate Senator LaBoucane-Benson for her promotion to the position of Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate my support in ensuring the proper functioning of the Senate and respect for our individual and collective responsibilities in this chamber.

Thank you very much.

Senator Plett: Someday I’ll try to figure out what your answer will be, and then I’ll ask a question accordingly; that way, at least, we’ll get the question answered.

Leader, why can’t the Trudeau government ever be straight with Canadians about anything — even when it comes to how billions of their tax dollars could be spent in subsidies? They cannot be upfront with Canadians.

Yesterday, when Minister Freeland was asked about the Stellantis project in the other place, her responses did not even come close to answering the questions. I guess you attend the same Question Period prep.

This is what we have all seen publicly over the course of the Trudeau government: higher taxes, more red tape, moving regulatory goalposts midstream, private-sector investment and energy projects evaporating. The list goes on and on, leader.

Leader, when all is said and done, what will be the total cost to taxpayers? Will your government commit to telling Canadians, or will the Trudeau government try to conceal that as well?

Senator Housakos: Yes, you have been clear; the government has been clear. We are going to continue to investigate. We are going to continue to have special or regular rapporteurs, or hire people from the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation to write reports.

At the end of the day, we have had no action. It has been months that we have had these illegal CCP police stations operating on Canadian soil.

We have also seen the government take two years to address the issue of a member of Parliament — him and his family — being threatened by CCP foreign interference. Your government took no action whatsoever. It took two years before we actually expelled somebody who was involved directly in that particular threat.

The questions I have are very simple: How much longer before our government shuts these down? How much longer will it take before the government holds the people responsible for these operations to account, and has them meet the full force of Canadian law? At the end of the day, that’s the only time when we can say the government is serious — when we shut them down, and when those responsible for this illegal operation on Canadian soil face the full force of Canadian law.

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, with amendments and observations), presented in the Senate on May 11, 2023.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill S-237, An Act to establish the Foreign Influence Registry and to amend the Criminal Code.