Senator Downe: Do you share that view?

Senator Cotter: But eventually that will occur. At that point in time, the opposition leader will cross over to another seat in this chamber; the government leader presumably will cross over to an opposition or other seat. And I imagine that, as they do, they will stop in the middle and exchange binders. The opposition leader will hand over his or her binder of questions and criticisms, and the government leader will hand over his or her binder of answers or, as Senator Plett might say, “non-answers.”

Senator Cotter: But eventually that will occur. At that point in time, the opposition leader will cross over to another seat in this chamber; the government leader presumably will cross over to an opposition or other seat. And I imagine that, as they do, they will stop in the middle and exchange binders. The opposition leader will hand over his or her binder of questions and criticisms, and the government leader will hand over his or her binder of answers or, as Senator Plett might say, “non-answers.”

When that happens, a more muscular and oppositional and less accountable Senate will have a licence, supported by this potential precedent, to relentlessly impede initiatives of that new government.

So, for senators inclined to oppose the will of the elected body here — and, to be honest, on one or two specific points, I would be tempted myself — it’s important to think about the downside long-term consequences of pursuing that which you might most profoundly desire today, potentially to your regret.

My final point is the degree to which there is a genuine link between the “will of the people” associated with a particular initiative, or whether this is so esoteric a thought, based solely on the fact that a particular government was elected — in some respects, this is the Achilles heel of the Salisbury principle.

Can we point to a particular initiative and evidence that that initiative is connected with the will of the people? There is no incontrovertible evidence, but there is at least a meaningful link if a government, when campaigning for office, committed to an initiative and got elected and is advancing that initiative.

So, added to the general principle, the closer to an electoral commitment the core of a government initiative is, the greater the justification for deference to the will of that other place.

That was the case here. A commitment to reform the Broadcasting Act was part of the governing party’s 2021 electoral platform and Speech from the Throne.

In conclusion, we as a chamber have done our work here. We have examined this legislation extensively and well, as nearly all of us have observed with respect to this legislation, both at committee and here in the chamber. We have offered a series of sober second thoughts, many of which were adopted, some rejected. We have worked out a small constructive non-legislative “sober third thought.”

Our work, within the limits of our constitutional authority, has been done and well done. Going further, resisting further, would be unwise, in my submission, and would push us, in my view, to exceed the limits of our institutional authority. We should celebrate this good work, congratulate those who led the work and pushed us hard to adopt Senate improvements and say yes to this amended message. We should agree to go to P.E.I. on vacation. Thank you very much.

Senator Cotter: Some hope either later or not at all.

Senator MacDonald: I thought of this amendment quite awhile ago, senator.

Senator Dasko: Thank you for the enthusiasm. Senator Plett, you have today offered high praise for the six amendments that were rejected by the House of Commons. You have lauded them, and you said that you insist on the entire amendment package.

However, senator, you did not support the bill with these amendments in it at third reading. I ask you, how can you urge us to insist on the 26 amendments when you yourself did not support them at third reading of the bill?

Senator Plett: Well, I hope you will be enthusiastic about my answer. The bill didn’t go far enough. The amendments didn’t go far enough. I said repeatedly in my speech that it’s still a flawed bill, even with the amendments, but the amendments make it a better bill.

Senator MacDonald: Certainly.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

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.

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.

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. 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. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Brian Francis, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, presented the following report:

Thursday, April 20, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples has the honour to present its

TENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Thursday, March 3, 2022, to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples, respectfully requests funds for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

Pursuant to Chapter 3:05, section 2(1)(c) of the Senate Administrative Rules, the budget submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN FRANCIS

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, Appendix B, p. 1411.)

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.)

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. 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. 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.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable colleagues, my question is for the Government Leader in the Senate. Senator Gold, although your government has been obfuscating when it comes to implementing a foreign agent registry, the Prime Minister recently tried to appear to support the idea, although at the same time cautioned that it would not be a silver bullet. It’s a pattern of this Prime Minister to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Now, there is a member of your government tabling a petition in the House of Commons calling for the even near idea of a foreign agent registry to be scrapped altogether. The Prime Minister himself is now citing the internment of thousands of Japanese and Italian Canadians during World War II as an example of why the government is taking its time on this issue.

Senator Gold, we have heard those talking points before. We have heard those talking points from none other than Beijing, and its mouthpiece is right here in Canada. Not only does one thing not have anything to do with the other, but why is the Prime Minister resorting to tactics employed by the Communist thugs in Beijing to scare the very people he should be doing more to protect right here in Canada? Why is he doing their dirty work and their heavy lifting?