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.

Hon. Raymonde Gagnéhaving 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.

Senator Mégie: Like all scientific studies, in medicine in particular — we’re talking here about alcohol, but it’s the same thing for other very important topics, such as cancer and other diseases: There are studies that often contradict each other. There would need to be a meta-analysis that takes the articles that are in favour and those that are against. Maybe that will land somewhere in the middle or prove someone or other right, but let’s wait before coming to any conclusions. For now, it’s a broader discussion.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Senator Gold: Well, if that was an invitation to agree to disagree, then I accept.

I understand the frustration when we have complicated matters that have to be addressed in circumscribed periods of time because of the budget cycles. I understand that well. But I stand by my answer, senator, and with respect, will disagree.

Senator Wallin: On that point, I guess we’ll disagree because it is our job in committee to give full study. When you put into a budget bill things that should be stand-alone legislation — we’re hearing this from witnesses and from members of the committee — there is no time or a way to actually look at the issues in a substantive way. Therefore, we find ourselves in a situation where we cannot legitimately claim to be providing sober second thought, and I do believe that breaches our rights and privileges as senators. Do you not see the problem?

Senator Galvez: Yes. I think our work at any committee, including ENEV, with respect to this bill is impacted because we don’t have the planning on when your bill will arrive. Thank you.

Senator Klyne: I did, but I’m glad to hear that the activities of the committee have been confirmed and that there is a clear path forward. Thank you.

[Translation]

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: It is the responsibility of a government — any responsible government — to take steps appropriately, prudently and according to proper standards.

It is a prerogative, of course, of an opposition party to say whatever they want to say without having the responsibility to back those up with actual actions.

This government was made aware of the allegations against member of Parliament Michael Chong from The Globe and Mail. One week later, the diplomat was expelled. That was an appropriate, timely and responsible response.

The government will continue to act responsibly and prudently when it receives information upon which it must take action.

[Translation]

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?