The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Christie Newton and Dr. Brady Bouchard. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Osler.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Christie Newton and Dr. Brady Bouchard. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Osler.

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

Hon. Percy Mockler: As Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I’d like to begin by thanking the honourable senators on the committee and the support staff for all their hard work.

Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance entitled Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): My question today is for the leader and member of the Liberal government of Canada. Leader, yesterday The Globe and Mail reported on the contents of a top-secret CSIS report from July 2021. This report claims that Beijing’s interference in our country involves a People’s Republic of China — PRC — diplomat in their Toronto consulate targeting family members of a Canadian member of Parliament “. . . to make an example of this MP and deter others from taking anti-PRC positions.”

The Globe and Mail says the member of Parliament who was targeted was Michael Chong, and it named a specific PRC diplomat who targeted Mr. Chong’s family in Hong Kong. This diplomat was also named earlier this year in another The Globe and Mail report on Beijing’s interference in our democracy.

Leader, why is this diplomat still permitted to be here? Why are his threats against an MP’s family of no concern to your government? Is it because Mr. Chong is a Conservative member of Parliament?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The answer is no. Thank you for your question. It is outrageous. Attempts to interfere with our democratic process and elected officials are outrageous, regardless of the party. Michael Chong is a respected parliamentarian. He is respected on all sides in the other place and, indeed, in this place.

As honourable senators would know, the Prime Minister and Minister Mendicino have directed the head of CSIS to follow up with Mr. Chong immediately. This is unacceptable.

Hon. F. Gigi Osler: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure to have representatives of The College of Family Physicians of Canada, or CFPC, join us in the gallery. Here today is their president, Dr. Christie Newton, and their past president, Dr. Brady Bouchard. The College of Family Physicians of Canada represents 42,000 members across the country. They are the voice of family medicine in Canada.

Yesterday was National Physicians’ Day, a day to recognize the work of physicians in caring for patients and building a stronger health care system. This year on National Physicians’ Day, representatives of CFPC travelled to Ottawa to meet with parliamentarians to advocate on behalf of family medicine.

In 2023, the shortage of family physicians across the country suggests that more than 6 million Canadians do not have a family doctor. A study by the Canadian Medical Association shows that, in recent years, the percentage of medical graduates choosing family medicine has fallen from 38.5% to 31.8%.

CFPC has been strongly advocating for actions to improve primary care in Canada. More family physicians are needed to relieve the pressure on those who are currently in practice. There must be consistent, deliberate action to increase supply and enhance capacity, with a focus on underserved areas and populations. This would help relieve the strain on the current health workforce and improve access to care for Canadians. Despite the federal government’s recent federal investment in health, Canada currently funds primary care at about half the level of many other OECD countries.

Family physicians are the backbone of primary care. Many believe that more team-based care, with family physicians partnered with nurse practitioners, physician assistants, social workers and counselors, would improve access to care and better health outcomes. This team-based medicine approach requires governments to rethink health care delivery and further invest in the human health resources needed for comprehensive, high‑quality primary care.

Honourable senators, CFPC is here today to offer solutions they believe will deliver results and improve health. Thank you to my colleagues who have met with them, and thank you to The College of Family Physicians of Canada for your dedication and hard work. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Leo Housakos: I would like the government leader to focus on today’s candle, and we’ll worry about Rapporteur Johnston for another time.

Back to MP Michael Chong, he and his family were targeted by the Beijing regime because he moved a motion in the House of Commons recognizing the Uighur genocide. A similar motion, sadly enough — it was a sad day in this institution when Trudeau-appointed senators defeated that motion.

Now, if Prime Minister Trudeau did not take action to protect Michael Chong because he is a Conservative and because of partisan reasons, that’s shameful. If it’s because of utter incompetence — as he hasn’t shown any ability to protect Canadians from foreign interference — that’s just as shameful.

Now that the Prime Minister has been called out by the media with concrete information, what does he do, colleagues? He calls for another investigation where now that everyone has resigned from the Trudeau Foundation, he is running out of people he can appoint to investigate all of his various failures. Who is he going to appoint now to investigate this particular failure? Will it be his mother or his brother? Or maybe, colleagues, he might appoint himself. I can just see it now: What did I know? When did I know it? Who told me? Why didn’t I do something about it?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, thank you for your question. As I mentioned in my response, Senator Woo, my understanding is that the RCMP is continuing to investigate these matters and, to the best of my knowledge, have not released the findings or the results. Therefore, I’m really not in a position to answer your question.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Senator Gold, you have just heard Senator Housakos make a grave and baseless allegation against Chinese Canadians in Montreal who are associated with certain community organizations. He was referring, of course, to Minister Mendicino’s declaration that all of the so-called Chinese police stations in the country have been shut down, including one alleged to have been located at the Service a la Famille Chinoise du Grand Montréal and another at Centre Sino-Québec de la Rive-Sud in Brossard.

Senator Gold, what evidence did police find to substantiate the claim that there were Chinese police stations in Montreal? What illegal activities have been stopped?

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Senator Gold, you have just heard Senator Housakos make a grave and baseless allegation against Chinese Canadians in Montreal who are associated with certain community organizations. He was referring, of course, to Minister Mendicino’s declaration that all of the so-called Chinese police stations in the country have been shut down, including one alleged to have been located at the Service à la Famille Chinoise du Grand Montréal and another at Centre Sino-Québec de la Rive-Sud in Brossard.

Senator Gold, what evidence did police find to substantiate the claim that there were Chinese police stations in Montreal? What illegal activities have been stopped?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, I didn’t hear a question, but —

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, and thank you for acknowledging the work that the government is doing with our allies in trying to get as many Canadians out as possible. Regrettably, circumstances on the ground have made it too dangerous, but efforts are ongoing. As we know, the minister is in Kenya working with allies.

Our traditions teach us that everything has a season. Right now, the focus of the Canadian government is on securing the safety of Canadians in the area. I will make inquiries as to what longer-range plans may be in place to help bring an end to the violence. It’s not obvious that the moment is ripe right now for those efforts as the fighting rages on, and the focus has to be on the safety and security of Canadians, but thank you.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: My question is again to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, I want to congratulate the government in the quick way it has evacuated so many people from Sudan and then asked for help from other countries in the evacuation effort.

Canada has led the way in Sudan with mediation. I know that people will think this time is not the right time to mediate between the warlords, but last time it was even worse. What is Canada doing to bring peace in that area?

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. The government reached an agreement that put an end to the strike by 120,000 federal public servants that began on April 19.

I would tell you that after dragging its feet in these negotiations, the government is now giving public servants an 11.5% salary increase compared to the 12.6% they asked for and deserved.

As a former union leader, I’ll forever be surprised to see governments drag things out rather than negotiating seriously with unions. Financial considerations aside, this 20-day strike is now causing delays in issuing passports, visas abroad and processing immigration files, as though the situation weren’t devastating enough for people waiting for these services.

Can you explain why the government, which has never shown restraint in public expenditures, delayed for such a long time before giving public servants what they were asking for? Now, it’s congratulating itself on arriving at a fair settlement, but it only did so after a 20-day strike. This delay has had an impact on the lives of Canadians that could have been avoided. Between you and me, what was the logic behind these negotiations?

Hon. Patricia Bovey: This question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, you know that Winnipeg is hosting the 2023 World Police and Fire Games this July and August. Planning is coming along well, the venues are ready and the hotel rooms are booked, as the city is poised to welcome the second largest international sporting event — second only to the Olympic Summer Games. The athletes are professional police, firefighters and paramedics. In other words, Winnipeg is welcoming first responders and their families to these games — it is an important tourist event, and doubly so coming off COVID.

But they have hit a problem.

Many of the athletes from India are being denied visas out of the apparent fear that they will stay in Canada. Senator Gold, these are professionals with professional careers in their home country. India is looking to host these games in several years and will be sending organizers as well as athletes. Of course, we will want our Canadian police and firefighter athletes to go there.

Can you assure the organizers that visas will be accorded to these athletes so that the games can carry on? When will the visas be given? Time is of the essence, as the games open in less than 90 days.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, colleague.

The government placed its trust in the collective bargaining process because it is the best way to protect the workers’ interests as well as Canada’s social fabric.

As you know, negotiations take time. There were more than just financial issues at play. There was also the important issue of telework. It took some time for the government to come to a responsible, fiscally prudent position and eventual final offer to avoid a domino effect on the provinces and other talks. It also took some time for the union to realize that the government’s offer was fair. I don’t think it took 20 days, but the process took time.

In the end, we reached a conclusion that is good for Canadians and good for public service workers. The result is also good for Canada, because it gives us a period of stability that I hope will last at least four years.

The government is pleased with the outcome, but also recognizes that strikes are always inconvenient for Canadians.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator.

The government does understand the disappointment and concerns over the delays of the applications and, indeed, the visa refusals to which you referred. The government is working closely with the organizers of this event, as well as all large events and conferences, in order to provide guidance on the processes surrounding the application for visas. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has put into place measures to facilitate the entry of delegates and participants of large events such as this one.

Colleagues, it’s undeniable that the current public service job action has affected the processing capacity of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, over the last few weeks, but — through me — the government is reaffirming its commitment to minimize that impact and to return to service standards.

Concerning the event, and to answer your question more specifically, the government has assured me that they are aware of the issue, and they are looking at ways to be facilitative for the participants of the event — to the fullest extent possible.

Hon. Victor Oh: My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, a recent report from the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada details the struggles that many Canadians are facing just to pay for their daily life. Their report entitled Consumer Vulnerability: Evidence from the Monthly COVID-19 Financial Well-being Survey shows that 38% of Canadians say they have to borrow money to cover their daily expenses — up from 26% in 2020.

The use of online moneylenders or payday loans by Canadians to manage daily expenses has more than tripled, and almost a third of Canadians reported that they are short on money at the end of the month. Leader, recent immigrants, Indigenous people and women were particularly vulnerable in each of these findings.

In light of this report, why did the Trudeau government believe that this was a good time to increase taxes?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): As I have answered to you, honourable colleague, previously, the meetings took place in the Langevin Block, not in the Prime Minister’s Office. Let’s be clear because — it’s the office building in which the Prime Minister’s — the meetings were with public officials. There was no evidence in the Prime Minister’s itinerary that there was such a meeting. The Prime Minister has said that he was not aware of such a meeting, and others who have attended such meetings in Langevin have also testified to the fact, or spoken publicly to the fact, that it is not necessarily the case at all that the Prime Minister would be aware of every meeting that takes place in that building.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Downe after Question Period on March 30, as well as a subsequent point of order raised by Senator Housakos on April 25.

In terms of the point of order of March 30, the remarks made during Question Period, which gave rise to the concerns, alleged that a member of the other place, holding a key position in public office, had misled Canadians. Then a very strong term, best avoided in parliamentary business, was used. Following a request from a senator, several other senators offered input on this matter on April 19.

Rule 6-13(1) deals with the language used in debate. It states that “[a]ll personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.” As indicated at page 85 of Senate Procedure in Practice:

There is no definitive list of words or expressions that are deemed unparliamentary. Determination of what constitutes unparliamentary language is left primarily to the judgment of the Speaker and the sense of the Senate. The circumstances and tone of the debate in question play important roles in this determination.

This is, of course, not the first time such issues have been raised. I note, in particular, a similar point of order raised on December 3, 2020, concerning remarks made during debate on a motion to authorize a committee to study a government contract.

I once again urge honourable senators to be mindful of the need for caution when participating in proceedings. In particular, parliamentary practice holds that “[d]isrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House [of Commons] and the Senate individually are not permitted.” This is at page 620 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which then goes on to emphasize that “Members of the House and the Senate are also protected by this rule.” In speaking of our colleagues, whether in the Senate or the other place, we should therefore be guided by the need to show respect and to avoid intemperate personalized attacks, including impugning motives.

Senator Housakos’ related point of order of April 25, dealt with remarks and actions that took place between senators following an exchange in the Senate. He argued that a particular senator had been “maligned and injured” and made reference to rule 2-9(2), which states that “[s]enators who consider themselves to have been offended or injured in the Senate Chamber … may appeal to the Senate for redress.” On the other hand, some colleagues claimed that the language and actions at issue were not excessive and not without precedent in the Senate.

Honourable senators, with the privilege of sitting in this house comes responsibility. We all work together for the good of our country. We can certainly disagree, and can even disagree strongly. Indeed, the exchange of conflicting ideas is vital to the health of our parliamentary system. We should, however, always act with civility and respect towards our fellow parliamentarians, and all persons we deal with or mention. All of us are responsible for ensuring the proper functioning of this institution, and we must avoid undermining it or each other.

Language and actions are powerful. Parliament should provide an example of productive and respectful debate, of a type that we do not always see elsewhere in society. We have a role to be leaders and must choose our words wisely. More practically, I am concerned about how such issues could harm the culture of the Senate and risk having deleterious effects on our work.

In light of all this, I am sure that honourable senators will understand the concerns that have been raised. Senators could have shown their strong views in ways that were less inflammatory. I strongly urge moderation and restraint by senators so that we can best fulfil our work on behalf of all Canadians. Collaboration from all colleagues is essential; the Senate must remain a forum for respectful debate while also retaining its characteristic as a body where each of us assumes responsibility for maintaining order and decorum.

In these specific cases, I must find that the events of which Senators Downe and Housakos complained did go beyond the limits of proper parliamentary behaviour. I ask colleagues to be mindful of these factors in the future. Specific actions relating to these cases would, however, require a decision from the Senate, in keeping with our collective responsibility for how our Senate functions.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6).