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.

Senator Dalphond: Senator MacDonald, did you think about this amendment before the first amendment or after the first amendment?

Hon. Diane Bellemare: On March 16, 2023, in Old Montreal, a terrible fire broke out in the early hours of the morning in a three-storey heritage building on Rue du Port, with 22 people inside.

After becoming trapped in windowless rooms without an emergency exit, some people made calls to 911 and family members. Others managed to flee or had to jump from windows to save their lives. Seven people did not make it out.

Camille Maheux, 76, was a cinematographer and videographer who was known in her circle as a “talented portrait photographer and pioneer of what came to be known as intimate documentaries.” She got her start in the 1970s photographing the feminist movement, the LGBT community and marginalized people.

[English]

Nathan Sears, 35, was a recent PhD graduate in political science at the University of Toronto. He was a Cadieux-Léger Fellow at Global Affairs Canada and a fellow at the Trudeau Centre for Peace, Conflict and Justice. Known by his peers and loved ones as a passionate academic with a promising career, he was in Montreal for the International Studies Association conference.

Dania Zafar, 31, was a young graphic designer, a free spirit and ambitious woman. She spoke to her father in Lahore, Pakistan, the day before the fire. She was on a spontaneous trip to Montreal with her friend Saniya Khan, also 31, who came to Montreal to visit a childhood friend. Saniya was completing a master’s degree in public health in Detroit.

An Wu, 31, was a young and promising neuroscientist who had obtained her PhD at 24 and worked as a project scientist at the University of California San Diego. She was visiting Quebec for the academic conference and workshop COSYNE.

[Translation]

Charlie Lacroix, 18, was a young woman who was described as a deeply caring social butterfly who adored art. She called her grandfather during the fire. Her friend Walid Belkahla, 18, was a young man with his whole life ahead of him.

For the families and friends of those who lost their lives, the several-day wait before the bodies were found in the rubble and identified was unbearable.

How could such a fire have happened in our community in this day and age?

The Chief Coroner of Quebec has ordered a public inquiry into the seven deaths.

These deaths should have never happened. Our thoughts are with the victims’ families and loved ones. They have my deepest sympathy.

[English]

Senator MacDonald: Could you repeat the question, please, senator?

Senator Dalphond: Thank you for agreeing to answer my question.

In a country where a majority government can be elected when one party wins between 37% and 41% of the vote, that means that 60% of the people did not vote for that government. Are you saying that if there are ever changes in government, we should speak for the 60% who didn’t vote for that government and prevent its bills from being passed?

Senator Plett: Yes.

Senator Plett: Ten days before Canadians voted in the 2019 federal election, the CBC used tax dollars, government dollars — you are the Government Representative, or the Leader of the Government, in the Senate — to sue the Conservative Party. The CBC continued to pursue this lawsuit for a year and a half before it was tossed out. By not answering my questions, the CBC has hidden the financial costs from Canadians ever since.

Are we expected to believe it’s just a coincidence that the video clips the CBC objected to were critical of Prime Minister Trudeau and his government? For example, one of the clips that the CBC didn’t want voters to see was taken from a public town hall meeting in Edmonton in early 2018. The Prime Minister famously told a veteran that they were asking for more than his government could provide. His shameful comments were widely reported. The CBC sued the Conservative Party anyway.

This week, the Prime Minister claimed the CBC is a foundational Canadian institution. Is hiding information from the public for two years the way a foundational institution should behave — yes or no, Senator Gold? How much did the lawsuit cost?

Senator Gold: As I have stated on a number of occasions, the Special Rapporteur the Honourable David Johnston will be advising the Prime Minister. When that advice is given and considered, decisions and announcements will be made.

Senator Housakos: Certainly.

Senator Cotter: I have two brief observations, Senator Downe, and I appreciate your observations. In my research, which was not absolutely comprehensive, I found two examples. You identified one, and the free trade agreement was another. I accept the idea that there could easily be exceptions, but, in my view, they have to be awfully big exceptions. I would suggest that this isn’t one. Thank you.

Senator Gold: The decision of the CBC to pursue a lawsuit against the Conservative Party, or anybody else, is a decision made by the CBC, and has nothing to do with the government.

The question of where the money came from, whether it came from ad revenue or taxpayer revenue, as you have asserted without knowledge one way or the other, is also a matter for the management of the CBC and, by extension, the board of directors of the CBC — not for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold: That is a good question, but I don’t really have the ability to answer it adequately. Our relationships with the world — whether it’s commercial, political, strategic, intelligence sharing or others — are complex, polycentric and multi-faceted. In that regard, there is, no doubt, going to be tensions, pushes and pulls between the various objectives that characterize our foreign policy.

Canada’s feminist foreign policy is a serious engagement by this government, and, indeed, it is emulated and admired by others, and will continue to be, notwithstanding the fact that we live in a complicated, messy world — and our actions on behalf of Canadians, companies and individuals may not always line up with everyone’s expectations of what the priority should be.

Senator Cardozo: There are some who believe that the Charter ensures this new thing, “the right to offend.” There are others in last year’s convoy who believed that they had the right to park their rigs in front of the Parliament Buildings forever, because it was in the Charter. It seems that we are seeing the rise of polarization, extremism and anarchy.

Does ensuring human rights into the Charter allow for anarchy?

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, it’s how the mandate is structured. The terms of reference for Mr. Johnston’s mandate are massive, including investigating foreign election interference now and historically; studying all communications between the PMO, Trudeau’s ministers and their offices on this issue to find out what they knew, when they knew it and what they did or didn’t do about it; determining what Canada’s security intelligence services recommended to fight foreign interference; resolving any outstanding questions not dealt with by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP, and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, NSIRA; recommending:

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, it’s how the mandate is structured. The terms of reference for Mr. Johnston’s mandate are massive, including investigating foreign election interference now and historically; studying all communications between the PMO, Trudeau’s ministers and their offices on this issue to find out what they knew, when they knew it and what they did or didn’t do about it; determining what Canada’s security intelligence services recommended to fight foreign interference; resolving any outstanding questions not dealt with by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP, and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, NSIRA; recommending:

. . . changes in the institutional design and co-ordination of government assets deployed to defend against or otherwise deal with such interference; and

To report on any other related matters of importance.

How on earth could one person do all those things? I guess that’s why they needed a special rapporteur. Mr. Johnston is supposed to do an interim report on all this by May 23, then continue “rapporteuring” until October 31.

However, if he were to decide next month that there should be a public inquiry, what would be left to “rapporteur” on? Prime Minister Trudeau has structured Mr. Johnston’s mandate to try to placate Canadians and replace a public inquiry by putting a less transparent process in the hands of a trusted family friend and Trudeau Foundation member.

When will this government drop the smoke and mirrors and just call a public inquiry?