Senator Housakos: Would Senator Dean take a question?

Senator Dean: No.

Senator Carignan: That’s not up to your—

[English]

Senator Boehm: No, thank you, Senator Carignan.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Raymond Mong and Christina Chong. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Woo.

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 John Philpott and Sam Dugestani. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Ravalia.

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

Senator Audette: With pleasure. I’m very tired. Senator Batters? No? Okay. That’s democracy for you.

[English]

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, last Friday, Senate Human Resources gave out certificates of appreciation for the first time since the pandemic. Many senators attended the event, including our Speaker, George Furey, our Clerk, Gérald Lafrenière, as well as Pascale Legault and Philippe Hallée.

[English]

It is no small feat and very worthy of recognition to devote so much to public service: 130 Senate employees from our offices and Senate administration received awards for 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 years of service. I can’t name everyone in the time I’m allowed, but I would like to congratulate those within this chamber that we see daily as we sit here and whom we seek advice from.

They include the Usher of the Black Rod, Greg Peters, 40 years of combined service; our Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Philippe Hallée, 30 years; Till Heyde, 25 years of service; Jodi Turner, 20 years of service; Adam Thompson, 20 years of service; and Shaila Anwar, 15 years of service.

It is with great appreciation that I stand here today to thank all of you for your hard work and devotion to this institution and all the work we do for this great nation.

Colleagues, most of the recognized 130 employees we do not see. They are the hard-working employees who work behind the scenes, be it with IT, finance, the minutes of our proceedings, client services, mail, printing, planning, cleaning, et cetera. I think I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say that our jobs would be impossible without you and the extraordinary support you provide every day and, more often than we may like, some nights also.

While we senators may be the face of the Senate, the staffers we work with are the brains and the soul that make this place the grand chamber of sober second thought that it is. It is our staff’s institutional knowledge, sound judgment, keen insight and unwavering support that is the strength behind us and behind this institution.

To all our staff, thank you for your hard work, your devotion and for continuing to make the Senate such a great place to work. It’s a pleasure to work with you also. Thank you. Meegwetch.

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.)

Senator Housakos: Thank you, colleagues. I echo all the words that were expressed so eloquently by Senator Wallin. None of us are taking positions based on partisan politics; we’re taking positions in defence of Canadians. I have said that throughout the course of the debate on Bill C-11. I have not hidden my intentions in regard to Bill C-11, protecting freedom of speech and protecting what Canadian digital-first creators can post and view on the internet. I would rather be having a debate on the content of the bill this evening, as I’ve had throughout every process, instead of having a discussion on time allocation with a government leader who has professed to not be a government leader but a government representative.

Throughout the process, he has said that he doesn’t represent the government, that he’s just an independent — you’ve said this on a number of occasions. You have a shocked look every time I say that you have denied being a partisan government leader; that you are a representative of the government and you don’t represent the Liberal Party of Canada in this chamber. You have said that. You have said you’re not the government leader, yet now we have you calling for time allocation by using a rule that only a leader of a Liberal caucus governing party in the chamber should be using.

Now, to be clear, because I want to be specific on this particular motion, I don’t oppose it. I think it’s a wonderful tool. I said it when I was the Speaker in the past, and I said it when I was a member of a majority governing caucus — many of you are not members of a majority governing caucus, but in a very lucid way you’re all supporters of this Liberal government. You show it with your rhetoric and your speeches and, most importantly, you show it with your voting pattern. There is nothing wrong with that.

Back to the point that Senator Plett and many of us have been trying to make throughout the evening, we’re okay with the government saying they’re the government. We’re okay with Liberals saying they’re Liberals. It’s not an insult. I know these days it’s a little bit tough to acknowledge that you’re a Liberal, but at the end of the day, it’s a party that has had a long history in this country. I don’t see why we have this peekaboo process that we’re going through and this smoke and mirrors of saying, “We’re not one day but we are another day.” At the end of the day, when Canadians are going to judge you, they judge you on your vote. That’s a reality, government leader, and we can’t deny it.

There’s always frustration when we bring it up. I think the most important part of our work here is to be transparent and accountable to the Canadian public; to say where you stand on issues and vote clearly.

We’ve been transparent. Bill C-11 is a terrible bill, and when we get the time allocation — unfortunately, we’ll have a short period of time — we will again express clearly why it’s such a terrible bill. We’ve had witnesses and testimonies about what a terrible bill it is. I understand the government doesn’t want to talk about it because the government wants to make sure that bills like these that are not popular get swept under the rug and get moved along as quickly as possible. That’s when governments use time allocation.

Senator Saint-Germain, the truth of the matter is you use the word “democracy.” Democracy in this chamber is not about voting. I hate to break it to you. If you look at the last two or three elections, this chamber represented the democratic makeup in none of those elections. In 2015, there was an overwhelming majority Liberal government, and this chamber did not represent that reality for a few years. It still functioned to the best of our ability because of compromises of the opposition. In 2019, there was a minority Liberal government. In 2021, this current government won with 32% of the vote, the lowest percentage in the history of the country. So, this chamber, with 75% appointed senators from the governing party, do you think every vote we take on government legislation represents democracy? Please. It represents the will of the government.

That’s one important aspect of the Senate. They appoint a government leader to make sure the legislation moves along, as well as a deputy government leader, now modelled as a legislative — I don’t know what the title is. But we know one thing: You are ex officio. You come to committees, at clause-by-clause consideration, and you defend the government position. And you do it very well, Senator Gold. There is nothing wrong with that. Just like most of the senators whom Prime Minister Trudeau has appointed feel an obligation to support his agenda — and I believe most of you feel compelled as well because you share those political values. But democracy, Senator Saint-Germain, in this chamber, is expressed in debate, not by voting. Voting is just one small element where the government, at the end of the day, wins the day regardless of the numbers. But it’s in debate that democracy happens.

I learned that the hard way because in 2008, when I was brought here, I was sitting in a majority Conservative caucus, like many of you are right now, appointed by a prime minister, and there are many of you with the same view of the world. I was very frustrated for a few years with Senator Mercer, Senator Dawson and Senator Fraser, and I kept asking myself how come they only have 30% of the house here and they’re telling us what we have to do and what we can’t do. We’re the government. Let’s have a vote. Enough. Let’s move on. That’s not democracy.

I learned over time by speaking to guys like senator Lowell Murray and senator Serge Joyal — have you ever heard of them? They were giants of parliamentary democracy and they explained to me, “You know what, senator? I know you’re up there in the third row, and there are 60 Conservatives, and you’re fed up, but we’re articulating on behalf of stakeholders, Canadians and, more importantly, we recognize the principle in democracy that power corrupts, but absolute powers corrupts absolutely.”

It is, of course, natural for Prime Minister Trudeau to be sitting in Langevin Block, as did Prime Minister Harper back in 2014, and ask, “Why are those guys delaying my stuff over there? Giddy up. Let’s get on with it.” But you know why they were delaying things back then? It doesn’t matter if it was bills like Bill C-377, on which you referred to my ruling when I was Speaker, or stuff that we’re doing here on behalf of stakeholders. We’re talking on behalf of millions of Canadians who come and express themselves. If there’s any value in this institution, it’s when every day of the week there are a few hundred or a few thousand Canadians who think that there are people in here advocating for them.

You don’t measure that. The barometer for that kind of democracy isn’t because you have 70 votes, Senator Gold. We might have 15 votes, but we represent millions of voices. So the argument about how we need to get on with democracy — democracy comes in many forms, particularly in an unelected chamber. I remind everybody that we are on very thin ice with the Canadian public and have been for a long time because they always question the value of this institution.

Bill C-11 is one of those bills that we cannot pretend there was consensus on. We cannot pretend there was clarity. To this day, there is a lot of uncertainty, and this place has an obligation, not on a partisan basis — yes, Senator Gold, the other place is a hyper-partisan place, but it’s incumbent on us to not be hyper‑partisan. I know you feel we are because we keep insisting that the government listens to reason, but we’re not doing it because Pierre Poilievre asked us to. We did it because of the thousands of people I meet on a daily basis.

I’m going to Toronto this weekend. I’m doing round tables on Bill C-11. I invite you to come with me and meet the groups of Canadians. These are not card-carrying members of the Conservative Party. They are young Canadians concerned about expression, freedom of speech, what we’re going do with algorithms, how they’re going to be manipulating the platforms they’re using to communicate, why all of this is being done, and the cost and impact it will have, and we’ll have those debates in the few hours you’ve allocated for us this week.

Colleagues, another element here that’s important is that every time the government leader rises and speaks, he uses words to refer to the Trudeau government as “curative” and “progressive.” Maybe you don’t even realize you’re doing this, but when you were referring in your remarks earlier, you were talking about the action of the Trudeau government as curative, as doing God’s work, essentially, on Bill C-11, and we need to carry on. I invite you to go back and listen to it. In the same breath, you were talking about how the opposition was obstructive and abusive of our powers.

If that’s the starting point of a fair and open debate in an institution like this — when the government is calling us abusive, when the government is saying that we’re obstructionist and we’re partisan — those are the terminologies you’re using in your allocation when you’re speaking to us. Yet the government is curative and wonderful, and we’re obstructing democracy in its finest form. That’s when the frustration builds. This is the kind of discussion we spend more time on than we do on the actual content of the bill, government leader. This is where, of course, frustration kicks in.

I just want to reiterate that I don’t have a problem with the premise of the motion as long as it’s done in an honest and transparent way. Register as a government leader. Build your government caucus. You only need nine; I think you’ll find nine people who will admit they’re Liberal. Thank you.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, last Thursday, any of you walking past Ottawa City Hall would have seen an impressive array of uniformed soldiers and athletes congregating in the main hall. It was at this event that the True Patriot Love foundation briefed key parties on their preparations for the 2025 Invictus Games that will be held in Vancouver and Whistler. Here, they highlighted the impact and legacy that the games will have on service members, veterans and their families from around the world.

The Invictus Games continue to inspire our veterans to reach new heights since their founding in 2014. They have demonstrated the important healing power of sport while also generating a wider understanding and respect for those who have served their country. Many of us in the chamber have had the honour of sitting down with our veterans to hear their stories and find out how so many have struggled upon returning home. Sometimes, you can see these injuries, but other times they are quite hidden.

Operational stress injuries like PTSD run high in our returning soldiers, and while we’ve made advances in how these can be treated, there is still so much work to do. Adaptive sport has been shown to be a powerful tool in the recovery process. It gets our injured veterans engaged and active. It gives them a goal to work for and allows them to once again don a uniform of the country they so proudly served.

The games are also uniquely focused on the family and friends of those who are competing. In 2015, I met hundreds of family members along with Invictus athletes. They stayed with the athletes, which is a very unique games model. The Invictus movement is about helping not just the service member in their recovery but also the family. I will recall fondly my time with the Prime Minister meeting our Invictus team in the rotunda of Centre Block way back in 2018 shortly before they boarded their Invictus flight to Australia.

The 2025 games in Vancouver and Whistler will be remarkable. This being Canada, it will be the first ever winter Invictus Games, opening up a number of new events for our veterans from around the world to train for. In their preparations, games organizers are also working alongside the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Lí’lwat Nations on whose traditional territories the games will be held. This furthers the recommendations laid out in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and ensures Indigenous protocols are respected in all aspects of the games.

Colleagues, the word “invictus” means “unconquered.” It embodies the fighting spirit of ill and injured service personnel and what these tenacious men and women can achieve post‑injury. I think we can all agree that those who compete have already overcome obstacles many of us will thankfully never face. Their bravery and valour in their service to our country have already marked them for excellence. It will be an honour for our country to host them in 2025, and I am certain everyone in this chamber will join me in wishing them the best in their training and preparation for these games.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Hon. Karen Sorensen: Honourable senators, I’m proud to join tourism operators in marking Tourism Week. Representatives from the industry are in Ottawa this week, highlighting the contributions tourism makes to our economy, communities and country and what it will have to offer in the future. It’s no exaggeration to say that Canada is powered by tourism. Tourism has created jobs in every province and territory, employing 1 out of 10 workers. Pre-pandemic, the sector created 748,000 direct jobs and supported 2 million more. But the benefits aren’t just economic. From coast to coast to coast, tourism sustains our communities and allows our Canadian culture to thrive as we share our traditions with visitors from across the country and around the world.

However, the sector has had a very challenging few years and is not out of the woods yet. If we want tourism to thrive, we need to address labour shortages while also investing in our tourism assets so that Canada can continue to offer the cutting-edge, one‑of-a-kind experiences we’ve become known for worldwide. We also need to support success stories like Indigenous tourism, which is in high demand among domestic and international visitors and is a powerful vehicle for Indigenous economic development and cultural revitalization. As well, we need to promote Canada as a destination at home and abroad and incentivize industry to host their conferences and events here.

I learned yesterday at our event that the Shaw Centre in Ottawa has been rated the number one conference centre in the world, which was so interesting. I didn’t have that tidbit of information.

We were happy to see support for tourism in the most recent federal budget, and we’re looking forward to seeing the government’s Federal Tourism Growth Strategy. Canada’s attractions are world-class, and the beauty of our natural wonders is unparalleled, as is the welcoming spirit of our people. I encourage everyone to join me in standing with our tourism operators as they present Canada to the world.

Senator Housakos: You can laugh and find it funny, but one day you will find yourselves in opposition and you’ll realize there is a job to be done. Let me tell you, we passed the vast majority of government legislation quickly — especially through 2016-17, when we didn’t have a majority of Trudeau-appointed Liberals sitting in this chamber. This happened because there was a cooperative opposition.

You can laugh all you want. Throughout that process, Senator Plett always negotiated with Senator Gold and his predecessor, Senator Harder. However, there comes a point in time when the opposition draws a line in the sand. You’re absolutely right; it’s well within the right of government to use time allocation. I’ll repeat that it is a legitimate tool of the Westminster parliamentary system.

Senator Gold, I thank you for highlighting my wonderful ruling back in 2015. You’re absolutely right; I said in the ruling what I say today, consistently, that it’s a legitimate tool of the government — except at that particular point in time we had an honest, transparent and accountable government that named the government leader in this chamber, the deputy government leader and a government whip.

More important to the Rules, Senator Gold, this chamber had a governing Conservative caucus. All of us who understand Westminster parliamentary rules around the world know that it is our political parties that form governments and elect our prime ministers. By the way, our legitimacy comes from those prime ministers who appoint us to the Senate through the process of political parties.

Thank you for that ruling, but read it in context and in its entirety.

Second, in your liberal interpretation of the Rules — vis-à-vis the negotiations that Senator Plett referred to in terms of trying to find agreement between government and the opposition — the word “government” is nowhere in those Rules that were drafted in 1991. The Rules were prescriptive and clear: A political party is required to trigger time allocation. This is not something we’re making up, Senator Gold.

Unless something has changed in the past hour that I’m not aware of — I did check before I came in here — on the Senate website, Senator Gold, you remain identified as “unaffiliated.” I’m pretty confident that anyone watching the televised proceedings today will also see a banner under Senator Gold’s name that says “unaffiliated.” It doesn’t say “government leader.” Yes, you went to deep lengths and, yes, we moved points of order that questioned the ill-thought-out approach of the government playing peekaboo with this chamber, with modelling the government leader as a representative.

You created that context where you have become nothing more than someone who receives information and doesn’t share any with this chamber. I think the words you used are some “passive taker of information.” We didn’t force that upon you. It’s the Prime Minister who forced it upon you and this chamber in the 2015 election when he played partisan politics with this institution. And that’s a reality.

Some have acquiesced to that political agenda. We’ve played along because we understand we lost three successive elections, and it was incumbent on the opposition to make this place work, so we gave a little bit. But there are certain limits.

We’ve all heard Senator Gold and his predecessor Senator Harder say it in media interviews and in this very chamber that they are not affiliated with any political party. Just one example comes from Senator Gold at exactly 2:45 p.m. on June 15, 2021, when being questioned about a former Green Party member, who had espoused some pretty anti-Semitic views, crossing the floor and being welcomed to the Liberal government caucus. Senator Gold, you responded by saying:

At the risk of being pedantic, I represent the government in the Senate. I’m not a member of the Liberal Party.

As for the decision of the party to accept that member and under what circumstances, those questions should properly be directed to the Liberal Party.

Do you remember that? Of course, it isn’t just that she wasn’t welcomed into the Liberal Party, as I said, but she became a Liberal caucus member, a member of the government. But you took no accountability for that. Regardless, there you have it in his own words, colleagues.

Senator Gold in his role as government leader or Government Representative, depending on the day, is not affiliated with the Liberal Party or other political party recognized by Elections Canada. I’m not making this up. And that is the base requirement — the most fundamental requirement — for Senator Gold to be able to play a role in advocating time allocation. It’s clear in the Rules. It’s not ambiguous, not open to Liberal interpretations, not open to Conservative interpretations, just independent factual interpretations.

If that changes here today, or if there ever is a ruling that changes that, I fully expect that a communiqué will immediately go to the Senate Communications Directorate and Senate broadcasting to have Senator Gold, Senator Gagné, Senator LaBoucane-Benson and all identified properly on the website and the televised proceedings of this institution being accountable and transparent to the public that you represent the government.

Even after that, it doesn’t even give you the right to time allocation. You have to have the biggest Liberal caucus, along with your $2 million budget on behalf of the government, to be able to allocate time, Senator Gold, and with agreement. This is the rule — if you have agreement. You don’t have the right to have an agreement because you are not the government leader in the chamber to negotiate. But if you have agreement, rule 7-1(1), Your Honour, states:

At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that —

— and I highlight —

— the representatives of the recognized parties have agreed to allocate a specified number of days or hours . . .

And, without agreement, rule 7-2(1) states:

At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of the recognized parties have failed to agree to allocate time to conclude an adjourned debate on either . . .

I’m not a lawyer, but that’s pretty clear.

In accordance with the rule governing time allocation, the only role for the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government under our current structure is to inform the chamber of the decision of the current Leader of the Opposition as to whether he wishes to impose any time allocation.

The rule clearly states, whether with agreement or without agreement, that the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of recognized parties have agreed or have failed to agree to allocate time. It does not state that the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government is part of making that determination. But the recognized political parties have to do that.

If that were the intent of the rule, it would read, “having come to an agreement with,” or “failing to come to an agreement with.”

None of that wording is there. The wording of the rule purposely distinguishes between the representatives of the government and the representatives of recognized parties. Yet it does not say the agreement or lack thereof must be between government and recognized parties. It clearly leaves the government on the proverbial sideline of that decision, making clear the current wording of the rule — only the representatives of recognized parties can come to an agreement on time allocation. That’s the rule.

For clarity’s sake, Your Honour, we have the definition of “recognized party” in Appendix I, in case anyone has any ambiguity:

A recognized party in the Senate is composed of at least nine senators who are members of the same political party, which is registered under the Canada Elections Act, or has been registered under the Act within the past 15 years. . . .

That’s pretty clear, right? We respect, at least, Elections Canada’s laws. At least most of us do.

Continuing with Appendix I:

A recognized parliamentary group in the Senate is one to which at least nine senators belong and which is formed for parliamentary purposes. A senator may belong to either one recognized party or one recognized parliamentary group. Each recognized party or recognized group has a leader or facilitator in the Senate.

You will notice that the definition even makes the distinction — and this is important — between recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups.

Colleagues, again, we did that in cooperation in order to accommodate a very political agenda that has been imposed on this parliamentary institution.

That’s important because, again, the rule governing time allocation mentions only representatives of the recognized parties — i.e. those affiliated with a political party as recognized by the Canada Elections Act.

Last I checked, the ISG — Independent Senators Group — the CSG — Canadian Senators Group — and PSG — the Progressive Senate Group — are not recognized by Elections Canada. You can apply if you would like to, but you’re not. Only government can allocate time in our Westminster model, and governments are formed by political parties elected in the House of Commons. And, of course, by extension, the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, gives us our legitimacy by appointing us in this chamber. Political parties — nowhere in the rule are representatives of parliamentary groups mentioned.

As I said, we’ve had seven or eight years. We’ve opened the Parliament of Canada Act. There didn’t seem to be any urgency at the time to change that. We’ve had eight years to change the way time allocation has been operating in this chamber. There is no ambiguity around this.

And before anyone jumps to their feet to say this must have been an oversight, a lot of time, effort and resources have gone into changing the Rules of the Senate over the years. These particular rules did not slip our attention. It was not by accident that representatives of recognized parties were singled out when it comes to making an agreement on time allocation. If you don’t wish to take my word for it, how do you explain that we did distinguish and include the leaders of recognized parliamentary groups as it pertains to speaking times during debate on motion of time allocation? So we had the debate.

Rule 7-3(1)(f), Your Honour, states that during debate on the motion without agreement:

(i) the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition may each speak for up to 30 minutes, and

(ii) the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group may speak for up to 15 minutes . . .

So there we referred to leaders of recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups. In other words, they are not interchangeable in this place. That was decided a few years ago with everyone’s participation.

Therefore, when the rule states that the agreement, or lack thereof, must come from the leaders of the recognized parties in our current composition, that leaves only the representative of the Conservative caucus. That was not our choice. That was imposed on this place by the current Prime Minister. He might not like it today. The Government Representative today might like to be the government leader. You might even like to have a Liberal caucus today of 60 members to go with the $2 million budget, but you don’t have it.

It does not include the Government Representative by virtue of your own insistence. You did this. Your government did this; we didn’t.

If we’re still not satisfied with the intent of the wording of this rule and whether there is some ambiguity there for the rule to be interpreted, I’ll refer you to the then-government leader’s testimony at the now-defunct Modernization Committee on May 23, 2018. Senator Harder was addressing, amongst other things, possible ways to make proceedings in the chamber more efficient through the establishment of a business management committee. Obviously, that was not the direction that the Senate went, but it was clear that the notion of time allocation was on our minds. Again, it’s not like this one slipped by without consideration.

Senator Harder did testify at that time whatever approach we took must safeguard “. . . every senator’s individual right to debate, scrutinize, propose amendments and oppose.“

That would certainly explain the wording of the rule on time allocation in protecting the opposition’s role in determining it, especially when you consider that Senator Harder went on to say that the rule should also safeguard “. . . the government’s ability to have a say in the process of debate . . .” as it prepares to identify its own priorities. The duration of the bells, the deferral of votes as well as allowing members of the government leadership to sit as ex officio on committees — increasingly, he said nothing about the Government Representative playing a role in time allocation.

All of that is to further establish that the rule governing time allocation that singles out the representatives of recognized parties as the sole participants in any agreement was and is deliberate.

I have one final note, and it also comes from Senator Harder’s testimony at the Modernization Committee. Senator Harder spoke about the changes to the Parliament of Canada Act to reflect the new rules the Senate was establishing for itself, rightfully pointing out that any such changes would require the consent of both chambers of Parliament. Senator Harder said:

Because the Senate is a self-governing body, it is not for the government to unilaterally come forward with its own view of amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act that could affect the inner workings of the Senate.

Senator Harder stated that he agreed with our eminent former colleague Serge Joyal that any changes should come from the Senate itself and sent to the House to include in any legislation.

Senator Harder then cited the Leader of the Government in the House, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, from his own committee testimony on February 24, 2016, Your Honour. Minister LeBlanc stated:

I would be amenable to suggestions that Senate colleagues would have or whatever process you, Madam Chair, or your colleagues think is appropriate. . . .

You’ll appreciate that it’s not up to somebody who is serving in the House of Commons to come and suggest to senators how you may want to change or adjust your own Rules. . . . I would be happy to work collectively or collegially to ensure that if the government brings in a bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, we at the same time fix, amend, modernize or correct whatever you or your colleagues think might be important . . . .

Colleagues, Your Honour, our rule on time allocation is clear. It was put in place with the agreement of the Senate and in accordance with the reality of there no longer being a government caucus or a government leader who identifies as being affiliated with the governing party. This isn’t a holdover rule that hadn’t had time to change. We’ve made changes to reflect that it is no longer a chamber of political caucuses only.

If the government is allowed now to invoke time allocation, we are allowing the government to set the rules in this chamber with no barriers. I don’t just think it’s out of order; I would go so far as to say it is a breach of our privilege and a breach of the principles in this institution, which is we respect the rules of Parliament.

Even if you and everyone else in this chamber believes the government leader should be allowed to invoke time allocation regardless of their affiliation or lack thereof, that is a rule change that should not be decided in this manner. There are proper procedures. We can send this to the Rules Committee to be properly studied and allow that committee to report back to the chamber and follow the rules of Parliament.

In doing this now, the government is placing the Speaker as well, as my honourable colleague Senator Plett said, in a very untenable position. It is not his role to write or to overturn the Rules, Senator Gold, especially at the whim of someone from the other chamber — the Prime Minister — who is enforcing rule changes in this institution.

At the end of the day, Senator Gold, the Prime Minister has appointed a majority of senators in this chamber whose rhetoric fits the government’s. They articulate the government positions, they vote overwhelmingly for the government positions. We fund right now the leadership of the government in this chamber even though it has denied for seven and a half years that they are the government until, of course, today you have embraced government, so I don’t understand why this peekaboo charade continues to go on in this institution.

If it does — if there is a genuine willingness for independence — let’s show it and make sure that we don’t trample over the basic written Rules because this is a place of lawmaking, Your Honour. And if we as a place of lawmakers don’t respect our own Rules, how in the world are we going to have any legitimacy as an institution in the eyes of Canadians?

Thank you, Your Honour.

Senator Plett: It has not — and I don’t say that as a shot at any senator here, but I cannot make an argument here without senators taking offence and saying, “Don Plett is attacking me.” I’m sorry, but that’s not what I’m doing.

I’m attacking the Liberal Party of Canada because I believe they are the worst thing for this country; I believe that. I respect your beliefs — respect mine. I believe this Prime Minister is the very worst prime minister that this country has ever had, and that includes his dad — and he and I didn’t get along. But at least when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the Prime Minister, I felt that we had an adult in charge of our country.

I say that here, and that is somehow unparliamentary, and we’re being bad people because we express our opinions — because we’re political.

Senator Gold wants to have the power to do this, but he didn’t have the power before. Now, our Speaker has rewritten the Rules to give him the power to cut off debate. Again, it doesn’t matter how you feel about it. Two hours ago, you did not have the right to do what you can now because of the Rules — one individual rewrote the Rules, whether you like that or not. You can shake your head all you want; that is simply the fact of the matter.

The Rules are clear. When it says “recognized parties,” Senator Gold, it doesn’t matter; that’s not a big word to change — recognized parties, or recognized groups.

I think Senator Dalphond somehow interpreted recognized groups having the same power and the same rights as recognized parties because the leaders of the recognized groups received a raise in pay. And Senator Gold receives $92,000 for being the Leader of the Government. I don’t know where that plays into it, but the fact of the matter is that the other recognized groups do not have the same power that the opposition has or the same power that the government has. That was intentional.

Senator Harder was very much instrumental in opening up that Parliament of Canada Act, and when Minister LeBlanc was here today, many of us had conversations with the minister at that point. He made commitments to me; I won’t share them here, but he made commitments to me. He said, “This is what we want. This is as far as we want the chamber to go.” They recognized four groups. They didn’t want to go beyond that; they made it clear. Senator Saint-Germain will attest to that, as will Senator Tannas, I’m sure, and Senator Cordy. They will attest to this being what Minister LeBlanc said: “We don’t want to go beyond that.”

If they wanted you to have the power that you have now gotten through the back door — you couldn’t get through the front door — they would have given it to you. They would have dealt with it.

Today, Senator Lankin said, “Why send it to the Rules Committee? That’s where things go to die” — and we can’t have a committee that works on consensus. Why? We had committees that worked on consensus when we had the two most partisan parties in Canada, and they were the only parties here. We dealt on consensus. Everything that we did at the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration — Senator Housakos, you were there, and Senator Furey was there — was done by consensus. That was with two political parties. Now, all of a sudden, when we have a non-partisan chamber, we can’t deal on consensus anymore.

Colleagues, think about that for a while when you say that you are making this chamber less partisan — because you’re not.

I’m admitting to what I am: I’m a Conservative. I’m proud to be a Conservative. I’m proud to have conservative values. If you are proud to have liberal values, then stand up and say that. Don’t tell us that you are independent and you will vote your own way, and then you vote — 96% of the time — in favour of the government.

Senator Gold said that we had a deal, or at least he indicated a deal. In my previous life, I did a lot of negotiating. I negotiated on behalf of municipalities, and I negotiated on behalf of different organizations. When there was a negotiation, there were two sides, at least, talking.

The fact of the matter is, colleagues, that Senator Gold did say, without question on last Monday, that he would have liked to have had this bill passed by last Thursday. There’s no question — no denial there.

Typically, Senator Gold asks Senator Saint-Germain first regarding what she’s planning to put up for speakers. He then asks me. He then typically goes to either Senator Tannas or Senator Cordy and asks for their opinions — he did that. I will not share their opinions; I will only share mine. I said, “Senator Gold, we don’t have a motion for this. You’re asking me to tell you how many speakers we’re going to have, and I don’t have a motion. I would like that, and then I’ll be prepared to debate this and discuss it.” I don’t think anyone can deny that’s the conversation. He didn’t know why.

One of the senators said, “It will be a two-line motion. It doesn’t take a long time.” And I said, “You’re right. How long would it take you to write that?” It would take my staff about 10 minutes. This government has had two weeks, and they haven’t written this two-line motion. Why?

Then, I have to raise my suspicions a bit: Why aren’t they giving us a motion? It is a very simple thing. So I said, “Tomorrow, when we see that motion” — because I was told we would have it before midnight. I didn’t have it before midnight. My chief of staff did, but I was in bed when he got it. God love him, he didn’t wake me; he waited until the next day to give me the motion.

That day, we debated that motion. Senator Tannas offered an amendment. The next day, the government accepted that amendment. Talks were going on. Senator Gold called me about that amendment and whether or not we would support it. I suggested to him to at least wait until tomorrow — and we probably will, but I would like to wait until tomorrow because I would like to contemplate because I haven’t talked to my caucus. I’m not wanting to put words in your mouth, Senator Gold. He said, “Okay, let me think about that.” Then he called back and he said, “No, we’re planning on going ahead today.” I said, “Okay, Senator Gold, but we can’t support that today, so we will take the adjournment and we will likely pass it the next day,” which we did. We passed it the next day. We didn’t have a vote; we agreed to it. Senator Gold said, “Don, I think you and I should talk further this week.”

Honourable senators, I say this honestly. I did not believe that he was still thinking he was getting a bill on Thursday. I said, “Yes, we should. I would be happy to talk.” I said maybe we would talk before our leaders’ meeting next Monday. He said, “Well, I think we should talk earlier. I said, “Okay, maybe we can talk Thursday.” But, I said, “Senator Gold, I hope you understand that we’re not ready to call question on this on Thursday.” I’ll be the first one to admit that.

There’s no negotiation there, colleagues. We haven’t even started debate. We have not even started debate in this chamber, and he wants, in one day, for me to agree to something that has taken two-and-a-half or three years’ time? How on earth the Speaker could make a decision today on that is beyond me because Senator Gold gave us less than 30 hours to deal with a bill that had been around for three years? Is this how rulings are supposed to be done?

Again, it doesn’t matter, honourable senators, what side of the political spectrum we’re on. We have an obligation to Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada speaks for 7 million-plus Canadians. We won the popular vote in the last two elections. We have a duty — an honour-bound duty — to speak on behalf of those 7 million Canadians, and there will be more in the next election. We have a duty, and for us to be considered as people who are filibustering and as people who are not cooperating in the Senate because we are defending Conservative values, I really find that disconcerting.

I’ve been asked lately — and I know that many of you would encourage that I take the advice of some people and say, “Don, why are you beating yourself over the head? Why don’t you retire from the Senate?” I know there are probably those who would be happy to give me a going away present if I did that, but I say there are still more good days than bad. I still have hope. I said that to a couple that was in my office today. I still believe that I am speaking on behalf of many Canadians, and I want to continue to support those Canadians. I want to speak on behalf of those Canadians.

Again, this is not about whether or not we support time allocation. I have never said, Senator Gold, that we don’t. I fully expected, Senator Gold, that if we did not move this bill forward in the next week or two — and you and I have had those discussions, Senator Gold. You and I had those discussions just a few months ago when you offered. You said, “Don, if you need some help, I can probably help you.” There was no question that we were anticipating that we’ll have a limited amount of time to debate this bill in this chamber before you would at least try time allocation.

Would we have done the same thing we are doing today? Yes, we probably would have because I still believe you don’t have the right. By the rules, you don’t have the right on a number of issues, which I pointed out earlier. We would have still made that argument. But you, Senator Gold, would have given us an opportunity — you would have given Canadians an opportunity that you are taking away from them, not the opposition. We are here ready to debate this.

Yes, I presented an amendment the other day. I presented a very reasonable amendment, and that amendment was to simply go back to the government one time and say that we expect you to accept our amendment. That was the amendment. There was nothing untoward about that amendment. The fact of the matter is we all know procedures, and we needed to make sure that we wouldn’t be — Senator Lankin and I go back to a private member’s bill a few years ago where she got the better of me. Full marks. I hold no grudges.

Do we have to make sure that won’t happen? Yes. Is that in any way an intention to filibuster this for three months? No. We knew full well, Senator Gold, that there would come a time when you would probably — unless we allowed this to go forward — do what you did tonight, and we would have hoped that we would have gotten what we believe was the right ruling. You obviously believe you got the right ruling, and that’s fine. We’ll do another battle on another day.

However, for you to do this after six hours of debate — six hours, not on the very first day of debate — to refuse to talk to the Leader of the Opposition, refuse to come to the Leader of the Opposition. When this happens — I talk to the House leader in the other place all the time. When Mark Holland plans on doing time allocation, he lets Andrew Scheer know, as well as the other House leaders. What do you do? I come across the floor on Thursday, right in front of your desk and I said to you, “Senator Gold, should we have a meeting?” Now is not the time. Half an hour later, your notice of motion comes forward, and you suggest that we aren’t to be trusted? That we aren’t the honourable people? I consider that very questionable.

I asked you at that time if we should meet. Whether that bill passed on Thursday or whether that bill passes today, this Thursday, next Tuesday or even next Thursday, what difference does that make? Unless the Prime Minister is running scared and he wants to get out of Ottawa for a while, and he says, “Senator Gold, Senator Furey, you had better help me out here. We can’t be in Ottawa.” You’re shaking your head. We’ll see whether there is any relevance to that at all because other than that, Senator Gold, what difference on a bill that’s been here for three years does another week make? I can’t understand that.

You could have come to me, Senator Gold, at any point and said, “Don, if you don’t give me this bill by this time, I’m going to invoke time allocation.” That would have been the professional and honourable thing to do. I would have accepted that. I would have stood here and I probably would have torn my shirt like I am now and say that you don’t have the right to do that, but at least that would have been the proper way to do that instead of backdooring. That doesn’t go away.

You suggest I broke a deal. No, the government broke a deal. You know very well — and I won’t raise it — about the deal that you broke to me one time, Senator Gold. I would be very careful how often you tell me I broke a deal before I start talking about that one because that one was a whole lot more personal than this one. You don’t want that brought up on the Senate floor, Senator Gold. I would be careful in how often you tell me that I have broken a deal. I broke no deal. The government broke a deal. The government did not do their consultations. So I said, Senator Gold, the government did not own up, did not do what they were supposed to do and did not do what they said they had done, so we can’t go forward with this. It had nothing to do with Pierre Poilievre’s videos or Senator Housakos’s videos. It had to do with standing up for Canadians.

This is censorship gold on a censorship bill.

Let me end off on this, Senator Gold, and you can turn around and say the same to me: You will reap what you sow. In the next election, you will reap what you sow. This Senate will again become a chamber of sober second thought where people will respect each other, and that will happen after the next election, whether you like it or not. People will again respect each other here, whether they are on one side of the government or the other. We will have respect, even if we get angry like this over the course of the evening. I will fly Friday morning with a couple of my Manitoba colleagues, and we will rub shoulders and tell each other how much we love each other on the weekend, and then on Monday or Tuesday we’ll come back here and do what we’re doing here today because that, colleagues, is the way this chamber should work. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Again, government leader, the tradition and history of this place are that the government leader, especially on bills and motions as important as this, indulge the Senate and take questions. I take exception with a number of the things you said in your speech. If you don’t give the opposition an opportunity to address them with questions and answers, again, it creates that frustration that we have in this place.

I just want to deal with a couple of issues. You brought up how the opposition uses adjournments in order to stifle things. Every group in this place, when they want to stifle something, slow something down, take their time with it or negotiate it, take an adjournment on motions. It is nothing new. The government does it, the opposition does it, and, of course, since 2016, all groups do it.

The other thing is that I love the fact that you’re actually starting to pay attention to Pierre Poilievre’s videos. But what I take exception with is that you think it is somewhat partisan that Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, is publicly involved in a public debate opposing a government bill that Rachael Thomas, the critic on Bill C-11 in the House of Commons is on video —

I am asking a question, Your Honour, but I would like to give him some context. Colleagues, again, there is a tradition in this place of allowing some context in questions and answers.

The government leader said that Pierre Poilievre and Rachael Thomas in the other place were out there campaigning against Bill C-11. Are you equally offended when Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Rodriguez put out their videos or when they defend in the public arena and talk about how Bill C-11 is a good thing? Are you equally offended?

Senator Gold: I’m very reluctant to not answer questions, but I’m also mindful that we have a finite amount of time. I will take one question out of respect for the senator who has asked me and for the institution. Then, however, with your indulgence, I’m not going to take any further questions to give everyone else who wishes to speak on this time to speak.

Senator Plett: Nevertheless, Your Honour, I have the utmost respect for you personally. I said I would try to respect your ruling. I will. However, at this point I will also exercise my right, Your Honour, and with the highest deference to your position, I find it sad that just weeks before your retirement, you have been put into a position that I personally don’t believe — would you like to speak, Senator Lankin? I will sit down and give you the floor.

Senator Lankin: To speak on your behalf? Absolutely.

Senator Housakos: Of course I have a question. I wouldn’t get up on my feet without having a question.

Senator Saint-Germain, at the end of the day, we’ve had many instances as a chamber where we put forward amendments, and the amendments put forward — that we supported as well — by your colleagues in your committee were watered-down amendments to protect user-generated content compared to the ones that were defeated.

So my question is: Why wouldn’t the Senate just insist one more time to the government to listen to those — as you pointed out — thousands of user-generated content creators and witnesses and tell the government that we insist on these reasonable amendments as proposed by the ISG senators and supported at committee by all of us and tell the government it is in the interest of the voices of reason in the country that they support those amendments?