Senator Plett: The Communist Party in Beijing intimidates our fellow citizens right here on Canadian soil, including a campaign against elected members in the other place. In June, the RCMP confirmed that it opened an investigation into Beijing’s threats against Conservative MP Michael Chong and his family. Yet, just a few weeks later, the Trudeau government thought it was perfectly fine for Minister Guilbeault to take part in this organization, all the while inflicting terrible financial pain on Canadian families through the Prime Minister’s two carbon taxes.

Will the Prime Minister take Beijing’s interference seriously, leader, and order Minister Guilbeault to withdraw from this organization, stop sending the CCP money from Canadian taxpayers and axe the tax on Canadians?

Senator Gold: No.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question.

It is incorrect and frankly disrespectful to the integrity of each and every member of NSICOP to insinuate that they were appointed as “friends” or, as was implied by your leader, in order to insulate the Prime Minister and his government.

It would be equally inappropriate to assume that members of the Conservative or NDP or other members of NSICOP from the House or from this chamber do not approach their work in defence of Canada’s national security with the same degree of honour, integrity and diligence that all members do and should do.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: The government believes that the efforts that it has taken and continues to take to investigate and combat foreign interference in our democratic institutions — and, indeed, in our institutions more generally — is the appropriate response to a serious threat facing Canadians, and it will continue to act accordingly.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Yussuff, for the adoption of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, entitled Senate Budget 2023-24, presented in the Senate on February 7, 2023.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course.

[English]

Senator Plett: In April 2022 — almost a year and a half ago, leader — I put a question on the Senate Order Paper asking if any other payments were made to the Beijing-controlled infrastructure bank by the Trudeau government. Another question on the Order Paper has been there since March 2021 — two and a half years ago — and it asks how many middle-class jobs were created here by sending the tax dollars of Canadians to this infrastructure bank. Leader, this past March, you said you would endeavour to get the answers to these questions, but I am still waiting.

Leader, are questions like these difficult for you to answer? Are they the reason why the Prime Minister doesn’t want Conservatives on NSICOP?

Senator Housakos: I do not need you to disclose what conversations you have or do not have with the PMO, but at least you can remind them to respect the parliamentary rules and the procedures in this chamber and the fact that there is an opposition party that has a role to play in the Senate.

Senator Gold, part of your job in this newly independent Senate is to provide answers on behalf of the government. You are supposedly non-affiliated. If we give you until Thursday this week, two days, I think that this is more than enough time to go back to the Prime Minister’s Office and tell the Prime Minister that it is unacceptable to exclude the official opposition from NSICOP. In the spirit of independence and of respecting Parliament, as I said earlier in my first question, would you commit to doing that in order to bring back some credibility to this institution and allow it to do its role when it comes to oversight?

Senator Gold: I have made the Prime Minister aware of the concerns of the Senate and groups in the Senate as to the composition of NSICOP. The work that members of NSICOP from the Senate have done and will continue to do are exemplary and bring credit to the institution.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I do not think, as others do, that it is the most important event in an election campaign. All the evidence shows that debates have very little impact on voters’ opinions. That being said, it is still an event. If broadcasters are able to get along and organize one, that is just fine. I think they realized, after the disaster of 2021, that having five or six journalists moderate the debate is not a good idea. Maybe they’ll go back to simpler formats, especially with private broadcasters having less money and facing a broader crisis in journalism.

On the French side, the largest private broadcaster struck out on its own. It told Radio-Canada, “We don’t want to work with you. We’ll hold our own debate.” We are very well served in Quebec. The debate organized by Radio-Canada, with a few other smaller media outlets, is a bit more formal, and we also have a private sector debate with a moderator and some back-and-forth. Some say that it is a bit chaotic, but diversity is always welcome. Actually, Senator Dasko, since you ask me how I feel, I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, and I can say that, at a time when Canadians have a tremendous need for public services, I feel that investing in an electoral debates commission when the entire media landscape is changing is a bad investment.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Woo, calling the attention of the Senate to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the contributions that Chinese Canadians have made to our country, and the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination faced by Canadians of Asian descent.

Senator Gold: In an attempt to be brief, let me simply say that your assertions and assumptions about the reasons for the Prime Minister’s decisions are incorrect, nor is it correct to assume that nothing has been or is being done to investigate the serious allegations of foreign interference.

The Prime Minister made his choice for NSICOP based upon the needs of the committee at the time as he saw fit.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that the Clerk of the Senate has received certificates from the Registrar General of Canada showing that the following persons, respectively, have been summoned to the Senate:

Judy White

Paul Prosper

[Translation]

Hon. Judy A. White, of St. George’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, introduced between Hon. Marc Gold, P.C., and Hon. Michèle Audette.

The Hon. the Speaker having informed the Senate that there were senators without waiting to be introduced:

The following honourable senators were introduced; presented His Majesty’s writ of summons; took the solemn affirmation, which was administered by the Clerk of the Senate; and were seated:

Senator Gold: It is hard to keep repeating the same thing. Unfortunately, you leave me no choice.

Senators are appointed based on their skills and experience and based on the needs of the committee.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, there have been consultations and there is an agreement to allow a photographer in the Senate Chamber to photograph the introduction of new senators.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that the Clerk of the Senate has received certificates from the Registrar General of Canada showing that the following persons, respectively, have been summoned to the Senate:

Judy White

Paul Prosper

[Translation]

Senator Dasko: Thank you for your comments. I appreciated them.

You expressed doubt about the value of a commission. Clearly, the two times they have run the election, debates have been problematic. Do you feel there should continue to be at least one major English-language and one major French-language debate televised and online? Because it’s not just television; there is online access too. Do you feel that’s an important thing for the future of elections or just not at all?

[Translation]