The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, senator. I probably find myself in the same situation as you do. I’m not entirely sure how I envision that. That is, of course, why I started by asking Senator McCallum some questions.

What I did refer to is the old iteration of the Senate, when we had the two caucuses, and we did have independent or non-affiliated senators. At that time, generally they were taken in by the Leader of the Government. So I was just simply suggesting that maybe they could as well, because I believe that Senator Gagné or somebody from the government attends scroll.

As to how many unaffiliated senators there are now, I don’t know whether there are more or less than what there usually were, but, at that point, they certainly didn’t get the same number of questions as the opposition did. We’re talking about more things than Question Period, but, in the old days, during Question Period, it was basically the opposition asking questions. Every so often, somebody on the government side asked a question, but that was it.

So how do I envision this? I’m not sure. My suggestion is simply that Senator McCallum raised some good points and they need to be addressed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Do we have leave, honourable senators, so that Senator Bellemare will answer the question?

Senator Bellemare: Yes.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed will please say “nay.”

Senator Gold: Senator Plett, thank you for your follow-up, but I don’t know that I need lessons about talking points — or talking points that come from other places.

The government condemns the statements and the sentiments behind the statements. They’re deeply hurtful to all of us in the Jewish community and, indeed, to all Canadians who care about the proper, just and respectful treatment of all Canadians, regardless of their religion, race, culture or background. The government stands by its condemnation of these and also acknowledges — as I did yesterday and again now — that there were errors made in the vetting of this particular project and its proponent.

Senator Tannas: I agree with you, Senator Gold: The process that this government has undertaken is unprecedented and has created extra value with the candidates who have come.

I hope you’re not saying that it’s satisfactory in any way, or that somehow a province is at fault, it’s out of the government’s control or that it’s okay for a seat to sit vacant for 1,000 days or, in my case, two years.

Senator Saint-Germain: Once again, I’m not saying I’m opposed to the objective, but, given senators’ right to express their opinion on such an important issue and given our responsibility to ensure that the motion is constitutional, I move adjournment of the debate in my name.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Verner and I have had that discussion. As you know, this was Senator Verner’s initiative, but of course I immediately agreed to second it. This is a difficult debate. It’s a debate that we don’t want to prolong, given the nature of the facts that have tarnished all of our reputations. The idea was to keep debate short and avoid adjourning debate so that there is no break. This has been dragging on and hurting us for a long time. The idea of having a short debate where we all agree is obviously an idea that I support.

However, I understand what you’re saying. I have a feeling, given that this story has been affecting us for a long time, that the senators have made up their minds. After all, is it so hard to agree that Senator Meredith does not deserve the title “Honourable?” It makes complete sense. The two reports that I have reread are devastating, and they were produced by our Senate Ethics Officer as a result of our internal mechanisms, so I feel that the issue is relatively simple.

I consulted people before drafting this text to make sure it avoided any potential legal pitfalls. Are there constitutional issues? I’m sure Senator Verner had this motion drafted by a trained law clerk. I am no legal expert, but on the face of it I see no constitutional problem. That’s my point of view.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: I don’t wish to take any more points. I believe the point of my question was made, and it was more about the mechanics of Senator Plett’s proposal and exactly how it would work, given our true and tried principle of proportionality on the one hand, the fact that the Government Representative Office, or GRO, does not have an assigned number of seats on committees, nor do they have numbers of statements.

I’m wondering if you could explain your vision for all the non-affiliated senators being embraced by GRO as members of their caucus. I’m not quite sure how I would see that working.

The Hon. the Speaker: The sitting is suspended until 8 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

(2000)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator McPhedran, calling the attention of the Senate to parliamentary privilege, the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators and options for increasing accountability, transparency and fairness in the context of the Senate’s unique self-governance, including guidelines on public disclosure.

Senator Bovey: I’m not sure I like the word “end goal.” Surely, we should be looking at the word “future goal.” I wasn’t in the “good old Senate” — I know that. I never had any aspirations of being in the new Senate. Surprises happen in one’s life.

However, it must have been the case — and I hope you agree with me on this, Senator Plett — that not all the workings of the old Senate were necessarily “good old.” What I’m trying to get us to — and I hope you can agree with me and I asked you about this — is to agree to look for the future goal as opposed to the end goal. And as we do so, can we think about the needs of the ever-changing society and communities that we represent?

I would be interested if you do that, too, in our changing Manitoba. Remember, Manitoba was the “keystone” province, Senator Plett, so I come from the basis of that. Can we look at how the history of even our province changed the scope of Canadian Confederation and has changed the dynamics of this country that we call Canada?

Shouldn’t we be looking at how we can make this place a better place? As a chamber of sober second thought, don’t you agree with me that we have a responsibility to look at what that sober second thought is in terms of future goals?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Senator Plett: Certainly.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: As you know, she’s already a minority, and we represent minorities here. Now she’s trying to protect and prevent herself from being a minority on top of a minority.

I’m sorry; I agree with you and I agree with Senator McCallum. We should not do this. She is a minority on a minority, and she is a woman — a Native woman.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and reminding us all that, although the hurricane came and went, its effects are still being felt with, in many cases, devastating consequences to our fellow citizens.

The Government of Canada is pleased to have partnered with the Red Cross, as it has done in the past, and pleased that Canadians have been so generous. The government is matching those funds, as you know.

I apologize for not knowing the details of the situation that you described. I will look into it as quickly as I can and report back to the chamber.

Senator Plett: That was an awfully long preamble, Senator Woo, and I am not consulting economists on this. I am making a speech that is contrary to what the government is doing, and I don’t need to defend that. They need to defend their bill. I don’t need to defend their bill.

You say it’s very difficult to reduce the GST, and then with that you said, “But your government did it.” So it’s not impossible. It might be difficult, but it’s not impossible.

Hon. Leo Housakos: While some of my colleagues — independent senators in this place — are preoccupied with why critics on government bills criticize and oppose government bills, I will continue to hold the government to account.

[Translation]

My question is for the government leader. Yesterday, an hour before a House of Commons committee meeting, someone let the cat out of the bag. Since 2017, the Liberal government has granted $21.8 million worth of contracts for facilities near Roxham Road to Pierre Guay, a Liberal Party of Canada donor. History is repeating itself. Liberals always benefit from the largesse of the Liberal government.

Sadly, Senator Gold, this comes as no surprise. The difference this time around is that, until yesterday, the Trudeau government refused to disclose the amount, claiming it was confidential information. In 2021, La Presse tried to get this information by submitting an access to information request to Public Services and Procurement Canada, but the request was denied.

Senator Gold, why did your government try to hide how much money it had paid to Mr. Guay? Are you ashamed? Is there any other information you’re hiding? Are other loyal Liberals taking advantage of this situation?

Senator Plett: Senator Lovelace Nicholas, I entirely agree with you, which is why I supported Senator McCallum in what she said. I believe that this chamber has been set up for minorities. We’re finding ourselves over here awfully close to being part of a minority as well. Of course, in the good old days we were not a minority. We’re still a few more in numbers than your caucus; nevertheless, we also find ourselves getting closer to a minority. But I support what you are saying.

(Debate adjourned, in the name of Senator Pate.)

[Translation]

Senator Plett: Whether it is end goals or future goals, some of us — and the one thing about the Senate is that we are allowed to talk about other people’s ages because anybody can look that up, and you and I are going to be retiring from here not that far apart — but for some of us, this has become looking toward the end as opposed to the future.

We have drifted a little bit away from what Senator McCallum was talking about, so I will simply leave it at that.