Hon. Leo Housakos: I have a question for Senator Harder — I mean, Senator Gold. You’re interchangeable.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for Senator Harder — I mean, Senator Gold. You’re interchangeable.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I’m not sure how to start this. We have a government leader who is wanting to move a bill forward, who says, “I will answer one question and then I will not answer any more questions.”

Excuse me. Did you want to continue debate? Thank you.

Senator Gold said — and Hansard will show that he said — he would refuse a second question. Now he’s saying that time ran out again. That is somewhat fudging the truth, Senator Gold. You said you would not accept a second question.

I find that very disconcerting when the government leader refuses to answer questions from members opposite, and yet he is the one who is a “defender of democracy.” Hallelujah! Thank you that Senator Gold finally came to the chamber to defend democracy because I don’t know how this chamber could possibly have operated for the last 150 plus years without Prime Minister Trudeau’s appointments — “independent appointments” who have voted 96% in favour of the government and yet sit in this chamber and say they are independent, over and over again.

We have still four, maybe five, senators left who have admitted that they would love to still be in a Liberal caucus, but because of Trudeau’s wonderful reformed Senate, they have chosen to go to their own caucuses.

We’ve had a few members leave, and they now vote, occasionally, for Liberal budgets. I don’t understand that either. I don’t understand where this Senate has improved in the last few years.

My most memorable times in this Senate were my spats with my good friend Senator Terry Mercer, who was every bit as partisan as I am. Senator Ringuette knows it. So does Senator Cordy. So does Senator Massicotte. They know how partisan Senator Mercer was, and yet we were best friends because we understood this is a political chamber and we had two political parties here that went toe to toe and debated legislation and, on occasion, brought in time allocation.

I, for the life of me, don’t understand why Senator Gold is somehow trying to frame this as we are opposed to time allocation. We are not. We have supported time allocation many times. Ask Senator Carignan. We got appointed on the same day in 2009, and Senator Seidman.

We have seen time allocation. We supported it on our side and on the other side. That is not the issue, Senator Gold. The issue is you have no right. The Constitution, the Rules of the Senate say you have no right. You sit there one day as, “I’m an unaffiliated senator, I am an independent senator, I’m not a member of the government,” yet you are carrying the water of the government, and you are here telling us you have the right.

No, you don’t. I read the Rules today. It doesn’t matter how badly we want to change those Rules. What you did today, government leader, is you forced our Speaker to rewrite the Rules. That is what you, government leader, will go down in history as. You forced our Speaker to rewrite the Rules. Because it doesn’t matter what the Speaker says of this issue; it doesn’t change what the Rules say. The Rules say “recognized parties.” You are not part of a recognized party. You can’t have it both ways. “One day I’m part of a recognized party. One day I’m a Government Representative. The next day I’m a government leader. Today I will answer your questions. Tomorrow, when you question me about CBC, I will say, ‘Well, I don’t answer for CBC.’”

Someday, Senator Gold, you’re going to have to accept what you are, admit what you are.

Senator Carignan: To be or not to be.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Thank you, Your Honour. Colleagues, even though I’ve been in this chamber for a bit more than six years, I rise for the first time to speak to a debate on a time allocation motion. This, a priori, leads me to make two important observations. The first is that time allocation is an exceptional process, a powerful and draconian tool with definitive consequences. My second observation is that this measure was treated with the restraint that is required of the government’s representatives, Senators Harder and Gold successively. It should be noted that this is the first time this exceptional practice has been used since this government came into power in 2015 and since the commencement of the Senate reform.

[English]

I will begin my intervention on this first time allocation motion in the Senate from this government by stating that I concur with many points brought forward by Senator Marc Gold in his speech today as well as in the one he gave last Tuesday when the message from the other place on Bill C-11, the online streaming act, was introduced in this chamber. I will not repeat every argument from Senator Gold, but I will insist on one point: how our role and actions as senators are bound by the Salisbury Convention and our complementary nature to the elected House of Commons.

Bill C-11, it can’t be denied, was part of the electoral platform of the Liberal Party of Canada. In fact, it had already been introduced before the last election, then known as Bill C-10, and was widely debated in the other place. As such, we can only conclude that Canadians elected this government with full knowledge of the intent of the bill and the fact that it would be introduced again in a new Parliament. Consequently, as senators, we can closely review the bill, propose changes and amendments, hear from experts and witnesses and we can express our concerns, as we have been doing. However, we can’t act in a way that would cause this bill to be defeated or die again on the Order Paper by way of dilatory tactics.

The Salisbury Convention is a guide, a reminder to show restraint in front of the will of an elected house in our bicameral Westminster system of Parliament.

I’m surprised when I hear senators who are usually so keen to defend the virtues of the classic Westminster system suddenly ignore one of its guiding conventions because it suits the partisan interests of the day.

Colleagues, it is with regret that I have to say that this time allocation motion is justified and even forced upon us under the circumstances. It is proposed today not by the choice of the government but because of the abuse of delaying tactics coming up to this point.

While time allocation is used to limit debate, no one can seriously argue that Bill C-11 and Bill C-10, for that matter, were not debated enough. In the previous Parliament, Bill C-10 was debated on eight different days at the other place from November 2020 to June 2021. In committee, it was studied for 62 hours and a total of 142 witnesses were heard. Its successor, Bill C-11, had even more scrutiny as it was debated on the other side of the Hill for 10 days from February 2022 to June 2022, 80 witnesses were heard and over 100 amendments were discussed and considered.

In the Senate, our Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications had 31 meetings for 67 hours and 30 minutes; 64 amendments were discussed and 26 were adopted.

In the chamber, we debated this bill at six different sittings between June 2022 and February 2023.

What else is there to say? The following: The notion that Bill C-11 is unpopular or unwanted by the Canadian public is false. It is, in fact, quite the contrary. Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians support Bill C-11 and its objective to regulate broadcasting on the internet. One of the polls, commissioned by The Globe and Mail last year, found that 63% of Canadians supported this push to regulate internet content, while only 37% were opposed to it. And by that I don’t mean that 37% of Canadians do not need to be heard, but I do believe they have been heard. This is particularly true in my home province of Quebec, where an overwhelming majority of stakeholders and artists are eagerly awaiting Royal Assent for Bill C-11.

Now let me take a moment to talk to you about our group and the rigorous work we did at the Independent Senators Group with this piece of legislation. I would like to thank particularly our members who have worked tirelessly to improve the bill at the Transport Committee: Senators Clement; Cormier; Dasko; Miville-Dechêne, the deputy chair; Simons; Sorensen and the others from all groups who have studied it and expressed themselves in the chamber. You have done so well maintaining an independent and critical mindset and voting according to your conscience and own personal opinions. I can say proudly that you have fulfilled the work expected of us as senators. Throughout this study, we at the ISG have always shown willingness to scrutinize the contents of the bill, resulting in what I believe to be a comprehensive study.

Not one witness wishing to testify before the committee was turned down. None of the debate was cut short, numerous amendments were presented and a good number of them were included in the final form of this bill. This resulted in better legislation for the benefit of Canadians: A total of 64 amendments were proposed, and 20 out of 26 amendments were adopted at the House of Commons.

On a less positive note, colleagues, while many senators were working to improve Bill C-11, some colleagues had different objectives. What exactly is at play here? Let me be clear: I have no doubt they are acting in good faith, truly believing that this bill is bad and that it should be defeated by any means. However, colleagues, although we would have liked all our amendments to be adopted by the other place and the government, it is time to move forward. The forced time allocation motion being debated today is the only way to break the deadlock and move on the adoption of the message we received beyond the pace of a turtle slowly going from one one-hour bell to another.

Let’s now speak about democracy. First and foremost, we are here to protect democracy. We are not elected representatives. Every one of us is well aware of this fact. We are, however, members of an institution of sober second thought — a thoughtful, reflective partner to the elected chamber. We are still very much a part of the parliamentary system of Canadian democracy.

At the base of every democratic system is the concept of a vote. This is what we are being asked to do by the other place — vote.

Good evening, Senator Plett.

Now, some colleagues know that they will lose a free and democratic vote in this chamber. We have already adopted a version of this bill at third reading, and the odds are that if we were to take a vote on this message, Bill C-11 would most probably be heading toward Royal Assent. These senators are doing everything in their power to prevent a vote. Is it really democracy to promote disinformation and demagogy with incendiary remarks while refusing to proceed to a vote? I know my language will shock some of my esteemed colleagues, but I must say it clearly for the record and for Canadians watching this debate. Bill C-11 is not an attack on free speech or freedom of opinion. Let’s not fall prey to demagogic attacks.

At third reading in this chamber, it was said that Bill C-11 would bring us back to the age of Cicero — a dangerous time where free thinkers would pay for their dissidence to a regime with the loss of limbs. I, rather, see Bill C-11 as a step into the 21st century and a new age of communication and broadcasting. I see it as a way for our Canadian artists and creators to shine and to be promoted fairly. I see it as long overdue.

So if dilatory tactics and demagogic fear mongering can impede a vote on a message from an elected house, are we as senators fulfilling our democratic role? Do we really believe that this is the way to restore the credibility of the Senate? Is this what is expected of us as non-elected parliamentarians, to delay legislation adopted by the representatives of the people?

[Translation]

As we say in French, to ask the question is to answer it.

[English]

The answer is obvious: Of course not.

Colleagues, if we don’t limit debate today to ensure that a vote is held, I’m afraid we might never get the chance to fulfill our duty as parliamentarians and vote on this message. This would be a great disservice to democracy.

[Translation]

In conclusion, today we’re asking that a vote be held. We’re asking that there be respect for parliamentary democracy, that a vote be held completely free of limits on debate, and also that there be a vote on the message from the House of Commons so that a decision is made about the future of Bill C-11.

I began my speech by highlighting the exceptional nature of this motion and its forced nature. In my view, limiting parliamentary debate must remain an exception.

However, I reiterate that the circumstances forced the representative of the government, a democratically elected government, to use this draconian option that is found in our parliamentary rules. Now the time has come to conclude the debate on the response of the government and of the chamber of elected members to the amendments to Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, that we proposed to them, and to continue our work on other legislation while looking to the future.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[English]

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I will take a brief time to join in the debate this evening on Senator Gold’s time allocation motion. To be clear from the outset, I speak for myself, not on behalf of the members of my group. Our members are free to vote as they see fit, but I will be supporting the motion.

While it will seem for many in the Senate like this is new, it really is not. I’ve been in this chamber long enough to have seen both sides of this debate. For example, in 2014, when my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, stated:

I would like to say that in fact time allocation opens debate. We are now debating. We are debating time allocation. We will debate the motion. In fact, adjourning debate is stifling debate.

That, of course, was when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister.

I have argued in the past against time allocation and the frequency of time allocation, particularly under the previous government. Senator Gold spoke in his speech about the frequency. I would have preferred an agreement, as I’m sure we all would have, that allowed everyone to have their piece, and then we voted. Since that option is not available, I have to consider all the factors in this particular situation before us. I’ve also considered that this is the first time that time allocation has been brought forward by the Senate leader, Senator Gold.

Senator Harder gave notice of time allocation, but it was withdrawn before it came up for debate. Unlike previous time allocations — and there were certainly a lot of them — this is not a stage for substantive debate on the legislation. In fact, it is a debate on time allocation.

Honourable senators, we’re now debating a motion to accept the message from the other place. Considerable time and effort has gone into weighing the merits of this legislation, both in the chamber and in committee hearings. As others have said, the Transport and Communications Committee — and I’m taking these statistics from Senator Housakos’s own speech on the committee report — held 31 meetings in total and heard from 138 witnesses. They received 67 briefs. In total, the committee met for nearly 68 hours. Clause-by-clause consideration lasted nine meetings. Committee members considered 73 amendments, and 26 were adopted. Certainly, there were a lot of witnesses and lots of time for questions and lots of debate at the committee and in this chamber.

Our former colleague Senator Dawson was tasked with shepherding this bill through the Senate and did a fine job of seeing Bill C-11 to the end of third reading in this chamber, and we, as senators, have done our due diligence and sent our amendments to the other place. Most were accepted and some were rejected. Two were amended, and then in the natural way of things in the past, the Senate defers to the elected members in the other place.

For those saying that we have not yet had time to debate the message received from the House of Commons, I would disagree. We have spent far less time debating in far more complicated circumstances. When Bill C-69 passed through this chamber, it was just as contentious, as some of you may recall. There, as noted by our former colleague Grant Mitchell in his speech about the message on June 17, 2019, the government “accepted 62 amendments outright and another 37 with some modification for a total of 99.”

One other senator spoke that day and it was adjourned. On June 20, debate resumed with one and a half hours of speeches, a 15-minute bell and a vote. That was it. In the end, this chamber accepted the will of the elected members in the other place and did not insist on its remaining amendments, all in less time than we will be debating this time allocation motion.

If Senator Gold’s motion passes, I would argue that we can easily complete our deliberations on this message in the six hours ahead. I would be surprised, actually, if that time period is filled.

Our right to speak is not being curtailed in any tangible way. I am very comfortable with this path forward today. I consider time allocation in this instance an acceptable solution, and I will be voting for the motion to be adopted. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Housakos, do you have a question?

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the time allocation motion for Bill C-11. This is, to say the least, an extraordinary day in the chamber, and yet, in some ways, more of the same.

I will start by saying that I support the motion. Our Conservative colleagues — and they are our colleagues — have once again laid out just about everything that they don’t like about an independent Senate. And it has also become more evident as the day has gone by that our Conservative colleagues would have been happy to see the demise of this bill. I certainly don’t feel the same way.

“We should have changed the Rules,” as we were told earlier today. Well, we gave that a try, and we faced a barrage of obstacles. That’s probably to be expected because our Conservative friends found every possible way to shut that down at the Rules Committee. They like the world just the way that it is, and I understand that — that sort of goes with being Conservative and change-resistant.

Our Conservative colleagues made the case that the Government Representative in the Senate did not have the power to move time allocation because he’s a non-affiliated senator; he’s not a member of a political party. They would have preferred to see a Government Representative Office, or GRO, with no powers, while conveniently retaining all the powers that they have to delay. That would be very convenient, indeed, wouldn’t it? That is what we have heard today.

Not surprisingly, our Conservative colleagues are no strangers to time allocation, and we’ve heard that already. It was first adopted in the Senate in 1991. Since then, it has been used 68 times. During the Forty-first Parliament, under the previous Conservative government, notice of motion for time allocation was given 24 times in the Senate. On two of those occasions, the notice was withdrawn. Therefore, time allocation was used 22 times by Conservative senators during the Forty-first Parliament.

Senator Gold has noted some of the more aggressive and fast-tracked Conservative time allocation motions — and it was on some quite important bills: Some of the bills in question included Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, which made sweeping changes to the Canada Elections Act; and Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, which expanded state powers, policing and national security powers, while undermining civil liberties and democratic rights. Both bills received Charter challenges after their swift passage.

This was business as usual for our Conservative colleagues. So I find it a little bit rich that our colleagues have seen the light, temporarily at least, in accusing the government of shutting down debate on a bill which, as we’ve heard already, has been before Parliament for two years, has been addressed by 142 witnesses and has had significant time for debate and deliberation — and which was an electoral promise in the last election. It is our duty as senators to ensure that the bill can reach a final vote.

This is the first time in seven years, obviously, that the Government Representative has invoked time allocation. We’ve heard that this followed many attempts to come to an agreement, to negotiate and to move the bill to a final vote. Time allocation is not what any of us would have wished for, but, after a significant amount of review, the Government Representative obviously decided, as is his right, that there is interest in moving this to a vote using the tool he has at his disposal: time allocation. We know, and the Speaker has confirmed tonight, that this is eligible in the Rules.

We have heard that Bill C-11 is the most debated piece of legislation in Canadian history. Consequently, none of us can reasonably say that we haven’t had enough time to study the bill. Our colleagues in the chamber have spoken at length about the clear objectives of the bill, as well as the very technical details in which this legislation will create new regulatory requirements for Canada’s legacy broadcasters and online social media platforms. We have learned, colleagues, all that we are going to learn, and it’s time to bring the bill to a final vote.

Balancing rules is obviously important in any context but, among other things, some rules have established an unproductive and conflict-based Senate in which the ability of the official opposition to endlessly delay the progress of bills — through the use of adjournments — is theoretically offset by the government’s ability to time allocate, while cutting short debates on bills. At their very worst, our current Rules permit a single senator to delay and frustrate proposed legislation for months and — as we’ve seen in some cases — years by depriving the Senate from even voting on it. We’ve seen many examples of that.

Tonight, it’s clear once again that Senate Conservatives have been unhappy about the shift to a more independent and less partisan Senate from the outset. It’s no surprise, is it?

Tonight, we heard that Senator Plett — I’m glad that you find this so amusing — is still lamenting the loss of the “take turns in power” duopoly. We had to argue, and we had to negotiate — when we came here as independent senators — for office space, for resources, for committee seats and, in the longer term, for more equity in the complex world of rules in this place. Nothing came easy, so spare us the advice to “Just go and change the Rules if you don’t like them.”

It doesn’t end there, does it? We also entered a Senate still reeling from a scathing Auditor General’s report on spending scandals, ethics issues, a Senate Administration leadership structure without a single point of accountability and a dark cloud of sexual harassment. That’s the context that we walked into.

Independent senators tackled these long-standing, long-ignored issues one at a time. The long-delayed recommendation on an independent audit function has been addressed. We fought hard and achieved support for a much stronger workplace harassment policy in the face of considerable delay and opposition. We have a Senate that is healthier and more efficient.

So, colleagues, while some in this place lament the old duopoly, they obviously feel comfortable with the same old hard‑nosed politics. By the way, I don’t believe for a moment that in the last few years of the Stephen Harper government, it was a golden time of sweetness and light for the Liberal opposition in this place. That’s fair enough, I think.

Let me conclude by saying that, like other independent senators, I’m grateful that I don’t have to take instructions from Pierre Poilievre, as I do not have to take instructions from Justin Trudeau. I would not have it any other way. I’m working with my colleagues in this place to do the best job I can for Canadians, bringing a policy-based approach to our work as opposed to a political one.

My final note is that I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues in every caucus and group in this place. We can do great things together if we work more effectively and more efficiently together.

The us-versus-them nature of some remarks that we have heard over the last months and years — and that we have heard this evening — tells me that we have some way to go in achieving this, but I still believe it’s worth our work. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the motion to allocate time for the consideration of the motion, as amended, to respond to the message from the House of Commons regarding Bill C-11. First of all, I’m very impressed by the senators’ eloquent debate.

I intend to vote in favour of this motion to allocate time. This is a historic day on the road to modernizing the Senate, to making it a less partisan Senate. I will say a little more later to address some of the comments made by my Conservative colleagues.

Today we have, in a sense, broken a glass ceiling in our process of modernizing the Senate. We’re voting on a motion to allocate time in the context of a Senate with four groups plus the Government Representative. This is an entirely new situation. In the past, time allocation motions were passed with only two groups in the Senate, the Conservatives and the Liberals. One of the two parties always had a majority, so the time allocation motion was passed in order to speed up the debate.

At that time, both caucuses were affiliated with their party; they had party meetings. The government’s goal was to try to get their bills passed here, or studied, but fairly quickly. Now, with several groups, it is impossible to move as quickly. It’s not easy for a government to impose its will. I think that’s the difference between the Senate of today and the Senate of yesterday. In the Senate of the 41st Parliament and prior, because the government often held a majority in both Houses, it could impose its will. The only way for the opposition party to make its point was to use delay tactics, and the time allocation motion was there to prevent those delay tactics.

In today’s environment, everything has changed, and I think as long as there are groups in the Senate that are using strategies together with their colleagues in the other place, there is a very real possibility that stalling tactics will be used. Chapter 7, which deals with time allocation motions, is an eminently important tool to deal with this issue of delay tactics that are so frustrating because they prevent debate, they prevent us from playing our role as a chamber of sober second thought, and they also keep us from voting.

Today, with the Speaker’s ruling, which was supported by everyone, we have shattered a glass ceiling. This doesn’t mean that we will use this practice often. I don’t believe that the Government Representative in the Senate and his small team are interested in doing so, because it won’t necessarily work given the number of groups. Therefore, the motion for time allocation without agreement will be used when there are delay tactics.

However, if all groups work to truly exercise their role of sober second thought, perhaps one day we won’t use rule 7-2, but rule 7-1, time allocation with agreement to indicate that there’s been sufficient debate. As there are no limits, we will be able to take the time needed. Our imaginations will ensure that we have orderly debates, such as those on medical assistance in dying, the bill to legalize cannabis and other bills.

The intent of my intervention is simply to highlight this point, especially for new senators who are perhaps wondering what they have gotten themselves into. I believe that today is an important day, but I don’t believe that this practice will be used often.

Therefore, I will be voting in favour of the motion. Thank you.

Hon. Claude Carignan: I’d like to say just a few words, given the late hour, to clarify some things. The first is that much is being made of the fact that this is the first time a time allocation motion is being used since the Trudeau government came to power. I would point out that the reason is simple: It’s because the Rules don’t allow it. That’s why there hasn’t been a time allocation motion before now, simply because the Rules are quite clear on the matter. I understand that Senator Gold used some manœuvre today to move a motion, but the fact remains that the Rules are very clear.

Second, much has also been made of using time allocation for bills. We are at the response to a message from the House of commons stage, a stage that couldn’t be more final for a bill — something we rarely see in fact. It has rarely happened that a message is sent to the House of Commons with amendments, only to have it returned to the Senate, followed by a reply.

If memory serves me, I’ve never seen a time allocation motion used at the response to a message from the House of Commons stage. At times rule 7-1 has been invoked on a bill, on amendments or at various reading stages, but I’ve never seen it used on a message from the Commons.

That is rather disappointing because this debate was going fairly well, beyond the matter of whether we took too much time or too little. Senator Gold mentioned that he’d reached an agreement with the leaders and that the bill had to be passed before the 10th or 11th, but that didn’t happen.

That’s fortunate, actually, because the debate continued and amendments were proposed by the other group. I no longer know what to call it because there are many groups with different names. Sometimes I get mixed up, but they all have colours that resemble the Senate chamber. These amendments were adopted and sent to the other place, and most of them were accepted. The debate was therefore not in vain. The fact that it went beyond the initial deadline set out by the government leader made it possible to continue the debate and propose amendments that were accepted by the House of Commons.

Although I don’t agree with the fact that senators were able to propose other amendments, the debate was still conducted properly and that led to improvements to the bill. What’s more, even though I think that the bill needed more amendments, the fact remains that a consensus will be reached by a vote. I’m sad that this is happening at the very end of this process. We’re at the message stage. Everything was going well. We had some success. Not me as a Conservative, because I obviously don’t agree with everything in the bill, but at least the process was complete, it was carried out in a respectful way, and we were able to make some improvements to the bill, many of which were accepted by the House of Commons. Now we’re at the very end of the process and we’re tripping at the finish line. We stopped running. The race stops here. I think that is a disgraceful end to a process that was nevertheless done by the book.

Senator Bellemare spoke of delay tactics. I invite you to read Serge Joyal’s book on the Senate. The Senate’s power to pass a time allocation motion is an important act to ensure fulsome debate within the context of the process that takes place here in this chamber.

I find it unfortunate that we’re ending this whole process with time allocation on a bill that’s specifically related to freedom of expression, especially when we were just days away from wrapping up debate. It’s also unfortunate that the Leader of the Government is using a time allocation motion to respond to a message to the House of Commons. I find that sad, and it’s the first time I’ve seen a time allocation motion at this stage. I don’t think it was the right time to set this precedent.

Again, Your Honour, I think we have to be respectful of the rules and respectful of each other, but this is a disappointing end to what has been an exemplary process up to this point.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Carignan, do you have a question?

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on the government’s motion to invoke time allocation on the Senate’s debate on the message from the House of Commons on Bill C-11. As you have heard throughout this debate, the Senate’s amendments on Bill C-11 were the product of an intensive committee study process. The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications heard nearly 70 hours of testimony from 140 witnesses, with 67 additional written submissions on this topic. The committee studied this issue tirelessly.

Since we received the message, the product of that committee study, back from the House of Commons, we’ve debated for only six hours before Senator Gold gave notice of the government’s intent to invoke time allocation. The Senate government leaders, first Senator Harder and now Senator Gold, have boasted for years about this government’s disdain for invoking time allocation and the lack of necessity for them to ever employ it. So why is the government choosing to invoke time allocation now?

After almost eight years of governing, it is appalling that the Trudeau government is choosing to impose time allocation in the Senate for the first time on Bill C-11, of all bills. With this move, the Trudeau government is censoring debate on a censorship bill.

The irony is not lost on Canadians, honourable senators. Canadians have lost a lot of trust in this Trudeau government as this legislation has worked its way through Parliament. The backlash from Canadians has been fast and furious, as citizens, and especially young people, resent the government’s attempt to interfere with the content Canadians can access and produce online.

Honourable senators, I know your email inboxes and telephone voice mail are just like mine: overflowing with emails and phone calls from Canadians opposed to Bill C-11. It is sometimes overwhelming, but it is indicative of the fact that many Canadians understand that their freedom of access to information and their freedom of expression are at risk with this legislation. People, especially young people, routinely stop me to register their opposition on this bill, not only Conservative-leaning people but also lots of people who have previously voted for the Trudeau government, as well as those who haven’t ever been engaged in politics before.

Canada’s domestic online content producers — musicians, artists and influencers — are largely united against this bill because of the negative implications this bill has in limiting their reach online and, in turn, curtailing their livelihoods.

Time allocation is one of the most political parliamentary procedures. Many senators in this chamber assert themselves as independent and devoid of partisan affiliation, but they will ultimately turn and vote for the use of the legislative guillotine on Bill C-11 simply to support this Trudeau government.

Honourable senators, don’t be fooled. Time allocation is just the government’s very blunt tool to cut short debate and force their agenda through Parliament.

In this place, one of our roles as senators is to safeguard and preserve the rights and interests of minorities that may be overrun in a House of Commons elected by representation by population. How is invoking time allocation in accordance with that aspiration, honourable senators? I submit that it runs roughshod over the very minority interests senators are sworn to protect.

Why is the Trudeau government pushing so hard to see that Bill C-11 passes both houses of Parliament as soon as possible? The timing is perhaps curious, but not difficult to understand. Canada is in the midst of a national affordability crisis, where Canadians are finding it difficult to secure the very necessities of life, like a roof over their heads and food on their tables. Meanwhile, the Trudeau government has increased the cost of bureaucracy by 50%, yet finds itself embroiled in the biggest public service strike in Canada’s history, something that could only be accomplished by the most incompetent money managers in the Trudeau government.

Once Bill C-11 is passed, I suspect the Trudeau government will move to prorogue Parliament soon in an attempt to lower the heat and distract from its many scandals — and they’re really dodging quite a few scandals, honourable senators.

First and foremost, of course, is the alleged Beijing election interference scandal that continues to dog Prime Minister Trudeau, following him like a bad stench. Tied into that is the mess that his family’s Trudeau Foundation has devolved into. We’re told one day that the Prime Minister hasn’t been involved with the Trudeau Foundation for ten years, even though his brother signed the agreement for a questionable donation that points right back to the Chinese Communist government. In fact, you might even be tempted to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, until you open the newspaper and discover his office hosted a meeting of the Trudeau Foundation and senior government officials right within the confines of his Prime Minister’s Office.

Every day seems to bring more bad news for this Prime Minister, and we know that answering for his behaviour is not high on the list of his list of priorities. Prorogation has the advantage of keeping the Prime Minister well away from a pesky and intrusive opposition and media questions on Parliament Hill. Instead, he can hide away out of view, waiting until his Special Rapporteur magically reveals, just before the May long weekend, that — surprise — there is no need for a public inquiry into Beijing election interference, leaving the Prime Minister free to go to as many $9,000-a-night luxury beach villas as he wants. Surf’s up.

Meanwhile, with Bill C-11 rammed through Parliament, the long arm of the Trudeau government will have the ability to manipulate and influence the information Canadians see and produce online, just in time for another election. How fortuitous.

Honourable senators, you don’t have to provide Prime Minister Trudeau with political cover by passing this legislation. Our Senate produced 26 very solid and reasonable amendments to Bill C-11 after weeks of careful study, research and witness testimony. What did the Liberal-NDP majority in the House of Commons do with them? Sure, they accepted 20 of the 26 amendments, which sounds like a win, until you look closer and discover that they rejected some of the most substantive amendments. That included the most important amendment on exempting user-generated content, proposed by two Trudeau-appointed senators, Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons, from the largest group in the Senate.

The Trudeau government passed the amended bill back to the Senate, and now it is once again our choice to make. The government still refuses to protect user-generated content in the actual legislation, instead insisting that appending such a promise in the wording of the motion will suffice. The motion reads:

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s public assurance that Bill C-11 will not apply to user-generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission accordingly . . .

Honourable senators, I wasn’t born yesterday. I’ve seen Prime Minister Trudeau’s Liberal promises come and go. Do you remember electoral reform, 2 billion trees, clean drinking water on all reserves and a carbon tax capped at $50 per tonne? It’s funny how those promises just vaporized into the ether. This one will too.

The Trudeau government wants senators and, by extension, Canadians to just trust them, kind of like how the Senate government leader consulted with our leader before declaring a failed agreement and moving time allocation — that kind of trust? There is no reason to think that this Liberal promise will hold up any better than any of the many other broken Liberal promises.

The Liberals forced this message through the House of Commons side and now they are forcing it through the Senate with this imposition of time allocation. Honourable senators, here is your chance to prove your independence. We have the opportunity and the obligation to push back for the benefit of all Canadians who value freedom of thought and expression. If those of you who were appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau vote with the government to shut down debate, consider that to be the last vestige of the independent Trudeau Senate. You hold the majority here, so you decide. Here is hoping you choose wisely. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise tonight at this late hour not to offer any new groundbreaking analysis on this well-debated topic of time allocation, but simply to join other colleagues in offering my opinion.

This has been a contentious and at times heated debate, as has been the case with Bill C-11, generally. While there is much disagreement about the use of time allocation, it is clear that all senators in this chamber are acting in what they believe to be the best interest of Canadians.

I support the motion. I do not agree with the argument that the government is stifling debate, because the facts simply do not support that assertion. Colleagues, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has done extraordinary work in studying Bill C-11, both in comprehensiveness and length. In the Senate alone, along with a pre-study of Bill C-11 that began on May 31 of last year, Transport and Communications held 31 meetings on the bill from the time it began its study on October 25, 2022. It heard from 138 witnesses over the course of 67.5 hours of meeting time. Beyond this incredible number of witnesses who appeared before the committee, it received another 67 written submissions. Of the 31 meetings held, 9 were just for clause-by-clause consideration, which began on November 23 of last year.

During clause-by-clause consideration, 73 amendments were proposed, 26 of these 73 proposals were adopted to a total of 11 different clauses. There were 13 subamendments proposed, of which 2 were adopted, along with 8 recorded votes.

Let us all spare a thought for the fortitude of the procedural clerks and other committee staff who handled all of that. Colleagues, those statistics do not even take into account the eight days overall during which debate occurred on the messages between the Senate and the House of Commons between February 2 and April 19 of this year.

There is also, of course, the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. That committee heard from 80 witnesses in 32 hours over 12 meetings from the time it began its study on May 24, 2022, and debated approximately 100 amendments in its three clause-by-clause sessions, which began on June 14 of last year. It also received 52 written submissions. That, colleagues, is just Bill C-11.

Of course, there was also a full study done on Bill C-11’s predecessor in the last Parliament, then Bill C-10, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and the Senate began second-reading debate before the dissolution of the Forty-third Parliament.

The Senate has spent more time on Bill C-11 — everyone has said this — than it has on any other piece of legislation in its 156-year history.

Honestly, colleagues, what more is there to say? The Senate, especially the members of the Committee on Transport and Communications, has more than done its work. The committee listened and debated, and so has the Senate. To argue that the government is crushing debate is simply not true.

This is the first time this government has invoked time allocation in the Senate since the start of the Forty-second Parliament in December 2015, nearly seven and a half years ago. In the Forty-first Parliament, however, under the previous government, time allocation was invoked 21 times in less than four years. It seems that support for time allocation depends on where you sit in the chamber.

I will close by reiterating again, colleagues, that time allocation is appropriate in this situation, where the bill in question has been so thoroughly and exhaustively debated, with its principle being debated over two different Parliaments. There is nothing left to say on this bill that has not already been said many times. I thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Carignan, do you have a question?

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on the government’s motion to invoke time allocation on the Senate’s debate on the message from the House of Commons on Bill C-11. As you have heard throughout this debate, the Senate’s amendments on Bill C-11 were the product of an intensive committee study process. The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications heard nearly 70 hours of testimony from 140 witnesses, with 67 additional written submissions on this topic. The committee studied this issue tirelessly.

Since we received the message, the product of that committee study, back from the House of Commons, we’ve debated for only six hours before Senator Gold gave notice of the government’s intent to invoke time allocation. The Senate government leaders, first Senator Harder and now Senator Gold, have boasted for years about this government’s disdain for invoking time allocation and the lack of necessity for them to ever employ it. So why is the government choosing to invoke time allocation now?

After almost eight years of governing, it is appalling that the Trudeau government is choosing to impose time allocation in the Senate for the first time on Bill C-11, of all bills. With this move, the Trudeau government is censoring debate on a censorship bill.

The irony is not lost on Canadians, honourable senators. Canadians have lost a lot of trust in this Trudeau government as this legislation has worked its way through Parliament. The backlash from Canadians has been fast and furious, as citizens, and especially young people, resent the government’s attempt to interfere with the content Canadians can access and produce online.

Honourable senators, I know your email inboxes and telephone voice mail are just like mine: overflowing with emails and phone calls from Canadians opposed to Bill C-11. It is sometimes overwhelming, but it is indicative of the fact that many Canadians understand that their freedom of access to information and their freedom of expression are at risk with this legislation. People, especially young people, routinely stop me to register their opposition on this bill, not only Conservative-leaning people but also lots of people who have previously voted for the Trudeau government, as well as those who haven’t ever been engaged in politics before.

Canada’s domestic online content producers — musicians, artists and influencers — are largely united against this bill because of the negative implications this bill has in limiting their reach online and, in turn, curtailing their livelihoods.

Time allocation is one of the most political parliamentary procedures. Many senators in this chamber assert themselves as independent and devoid of partisan affiliation, but they will ultimately turn and vote for the use of the legislative guillotine on Bill C-11 simply to support this Trudeau government.

Honourable senators, don’t be fooled. Time allocation is just the government’s very blunt tool to cut short debate and force their agenda through Parliament.

In this place, one of our roles as senators is to safeguard and preserve the rights and interests of minorities that may be overrun in a House of Commons elected by representation by population. How is invoking time allocation in accordance with that aspiration, honourable senators? I submit that it runs roughshod over the very minority interests senators are sworn to protect.

Why is the Trudeau government pushing so hard to see that Bill C-11 passes both houses of Parliament as soon as possible? The timing is perhaps curious, but not difficult to understand. Canada is in the midst of a national affordability crisis, where Canadians are finding it difficult to secure the very necessities of life, like a roof over their heads and food on their tables. Meanwhile, the Trudeau government has increased the cost of bureaucracy by 50%, yet finds itself embroiled in the biggest public service strike in Canada’s history, something that could only be accomplished by the most incompetent money managers in the Trudeau government.

Once Bill C-11 is passed, I suspect the Trudeau government will move to prorogue Parliament soon in an attempt to lower the heat and distract from its many scandals — and they’re really dodging quite a few scandals, honourable senators.

First and foremost, of course, is the alleged Beijing election interference scandal that continues to dog Prime Minister Trudeau, following him like a bad stench. Tied into that is the mess that his family’s Trudeau Foundation has devolved into. We’re told one day that the Prime Minister hasn’t been involved with the Trudeau Foundation for ten years, even though his brother signed the agreement for a questionable donation that points right back to the Chinese Communist government. In fact, you might even be tempted to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, until you open the newspaper and discover his office hosted a meeting of the Trudeau Foundation and senior government officials right within the confines of his Prime Minister’s Office.

Every day seems to bring more bad news for this Prime Minister, and we know that answering for his behaviour is not high on the list of his list of priorities. Prorogation has the advantage of keeping the Prime Minister well away from a pesky and intrusive opposition and media questions on Parliament Hill. Instead, he can hide away out of view, waiting until his Special Rapporteur magically reveals, just before the May long weekend, that — surprise — there is no need for a public inquiry into Beijing election interference, leaving the Prime Minister free to go to as many $9,000-a-night luxury beach villas as he wants. Surf’s up.

Meanwhile, with Bill C-11 rammed through Parliament, the long arm of the Trudeau government will have the ability to manipulate and influence the information Canadians see and produce online, just in time for another election. How fortuitous.

Honourable senators, you don’t have to provide Prime Minister Trudeau with political cover by passing this legislation. Our Senate produced 26 very solid and reasonable amendments to Bill C-11 after weeks of careful study, research and witness testimony. What did the Liberal-NDP majority in the House of Commons do with them? Sure, they accepted 20 of the 26 amendments, which sounds like a win, until you look closer and discover that they rejected some of the most substantive amendments. That included the most important amendment on exempting user-generated content, proposed by two Trudeau‑appointed senators, Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons, from the largest group in the Senate.

The Trudeau government passed the amended bill back to the Senate, and now it is once again our choice to make. The government still refuses to protect user-generated content in the actual legislation, instead insisting that appending such a promise in the wording of the motion will suffice. The motion reads:

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s public assurance that Bill C-11 will not apply to user‑generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission accordingly . . .

Honourable senators, I wasn’t born yesterday. I’ve seen Prime Minister Trudeau’s Liberal promises come and go. Do you remember electoral reform, 2 billion trees, clean drinking water on all reserves and a carbon tax capped at $50 per tonne? It’s funny how those promises just vaporized into the ether. This one will too.

The Trudeau government wants senators and, by extension, Canadians to just trust them, kind of like how the Senate government leader consulted with our leader before declaring a failed agreement and moving time allocation — that kind of trust? There is no reason to think that this Liberal promise will hold up any better than any of the many other broken Liberal promises.

The Liberals forced this message through the House of Commons side and now they are forcing it through the Senate with this imposition of time allocation. Honourable senators, here is your chance to prove your independence. We have the opportunity and the obligation to push back for the benefit of all Canadians who value freedom of thought and expression. If those of you who were appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau vote with the government to shut down debate, consider that to be the last vestige of the independent Trudeau Senate. You hold the majority here, so you decide. Here is hoping you choose wisely. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I’ve listened very carefully to the discussion tonight. It has ranged from a clear discussion of the merits of using time allocation at this point in time into discussions about reform of the Senate, where we’re headed or where we should be headed. There is no doubt there is a lot of disagreement in this chamber still. I live in hope that we will continue to have these discussions and perhaps come to a point where we can see a road forward together.

One of the things I would like to say about the speeches I’ve heard tonight is that there isn’t one of them with which I didn’t agree with some elements of what people said. I also disagreed with some elements of what people said.

One of the things that makes it difficult for me with my particular temperament and not being able to keep quiet when Senator Plett says certain things — of course, he can’t keep quiet when I say certain things either; it’s good across the floor — is when a position of the meritorious behaviour of the opposition is put forward as only speaking on behalf of Canadians. We all speak on behalf of Canadians. There are Canadians who have polarized views on this particular piece of legislation before us, as there is on others.

This is on both sides; I include this for the GRO — the Government Representative Office — as well as for the opposition: There isn’t a monopoly on representing what Canadians think. There are tons of scorn heaped upon us from people opposite who say that we’re not independent and put a partisan label on us. That would suit their purposes in terms of their concerns about a loss of official opposition status in a reformed Senate. We understand that those are the things at stake, but all of the people here represent voices of Canadians.

Your job, as has been said, is to bring forward and highlight the voices of Canadians who are not heard through other processes. That does not mean that we will necessarily all agree with what all of those voices have to say. It’s like just a couple of hours ago, maybe it was, when Senator Plett took a shot at me and said that I said that the Rules Committee worked on consensus and that should never happen. Well, no, but I don’t think the Rules Committee works on consensus; I think the Rules Committee puts forward a position of working on a consensus and certain people say, “No, no, no. We don’t have a consensus.” For me, that is exercising a veto, essentially.

We have these tensions, and I think they come primarily from a different understanding and desire for the direction of the Senate.

When it comes to what that means at this moment with the time allocation motion in front of us, I have a history in partisan politics and I hate time allocation motions. I think people should be responsible enough to take the debate as far as it needs to go to hear the variety of voices and to ensure that we have a deliberative discourse that allows us to hear each other.

There is nothing about how this chamber operates that actually supports that.

When I got here, I was appalled when I saw this practice where one person would speak and another person would stand and take the adjournment. It would sometimes be two or three weeks before we got back to that person. How do you listen to each other and ensure you have a coherent debate going forward? I was told that senators needed time to prepare after what they heard.

Maybe it’s not a good example — maybe it’s just the example that I lived in the Ontario legislature — but when we had debates and discussions when a bill came forward, we worked at it and didn’t skip around and adjourn and not come back to it. We talked things through. We got to a point where, responsibly — most of the time — the points had been made. They’d been heard in committee; they made sure there was a full range of witnesses. In fact, every group was able to put forward names, so you could tell there was a full range of views coming forward. Then we debated it out in the legislature, and we came to the point where we voted.

The problem here — and the reason it sticks in my craw that I’m going to support time allocation — is because I have seen with this bill that we have had fulsome debate. In fact, nobody has really talked about the fact that there was a bill in the prior Parliament — Bill C-10 — that was the same as this. It has been around a few times here. We’ve had fulsome debate in this chamber. We had fulsome committee hearings. If that makes up for something that was lacking in the other chamber, as Senator Wallin pointed out, then we have done that; we have made up for that.

I think the characterization that I heard earlier tonight from the leader of the opposition, namely that the government was ramming this through, was unfortunate. I don’t think that is an accurate description. We are at the message stage. For those who are listening and wondering what this is all about, we don’t have the bill before us right now. We are debating putting a time limit on how long we can debate about the message that came from the other place, and the question, fundamentally, is do we accept the message or send it back? And yet, a number of people there would propose that the six hours that have been set aside, one, is not enough; two, is the representative ramming it through; and, three, is not respectful of the voices. None of that, in my view, is true.

I wish we would have an opportunity to have a real debate about the vision of reform in the Senate. If the opposition is tired of feeling like they’re not respected in the things they say, I would say that I respect them in the things they say. I don’t often respect them in the things they do in terms of how they conduct themselves in this place, but I have to say that sometimes I descend to the same level. I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. You’re the one who has to worry about that the most.

But I would love to have that discussion. I’m not opposed to seeing opposition voices and the Conservative values brought forward. I believe in cognitive diversity. I believe in having all these views on the table. I do oppose you trying to label who I am in my politics, like the colleague directly across from me who tonight said, “You’re a Liberal.” That’s interesting. I voted Conservative, and I’ve voted New Democrat. Sorry, Prime Minister, I’ve never voted for your party.

Don’t tell me who I am. I have my own values and politics, and I bring them to bear in the best way I can in the spirit and respect of what I think this chamber is about. The basic problem is that I don’t think we have an agreement about what this chamber is about.

Thank you very much, Your Honour.

[Translation]

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I’ve listened very carefully to the discussion tonight. It has ranged from a clear discussion of the merits of using time allocation at this point in time into discussions about reform of the Senate, where we’re headed or where we should be headed. There is no doubt there is a lot of disagreement in this chamber still. I live in hope that we will continue to have these discussions and perhaps come to a point where we can see a road forward together.

One of the things I would like to say about the speeches I’ve heard tonight is that there isn’t one of them with which I didn’t agree with some elements of what people said. I also disagreed with some elements of what people said.

One of the things that makes it difficult for me with my particular temperament and not being able to keep quiet when Senator Plett says certain things — of course, he can’t keep quiet when I say certain things either; it’s good across the floor — is when a position of the meritorious behaviour of the opposition is put forward as only speaking on behalf of Canadians. We all speak on behalf of Canadians. There are Canadians who have polarized views on this particular piece of legislation before us, as there is on others.

This is on both sides; I include this for the GRO — the Government Representative Office — as well as for the opposition: There isn’t a monopoly on representing what Canadians think. There are tons of scorn heaped upon us from people opposite who say that we’re not independent and put a partisan label on us. That would suit their purposes in terms of their concerns about a loss of official opposition status in a reformed Senate. We understand that those are the things at stake, but all of the people here represent voices of Canadians.

Your job, as has been said, is to bring forward and highlight the voices of Canadians who are not heard through other processes. That does not mean that we will necessarily all agree with what all of those voices have to say. It’s like just a couple of hours ago, maybe it was, when Senator Plett took a shot at me and said that I said that the Rules Committee worked on consensus and that should never happen. Well, no, but I don’t think the Rules Committee works on consensus; I think the Rules Committee puts forward a position of working on a consensus and certain people say, “No, no, no. We don’t have a consensus.” For me, that is exercising a veto, essentially.

We have these tensions, and I think they come primarily from a different understanding and desire for the direction of the Senate.

When it comes to what that means at this moment with the time allocation motion in front of us, I have a history in partisan politics and I hate time allocation motions. I think people should be responsible enough to take the debate as far as it needs to go to hear the variety of voices and to ensure that we have a deliberative discourse that allows us to hear each other.

There is nothing about how this chamber operates that actually supports that.

When I got here, I was appalled when I saw this practice where one person would speak and another person would stand and take the adjournment. It would sometimes be two or three weeks before we got back to that person. How do you listen to each other and ensure you have a coherent debate going forward? I was told that senators needed time to prepare after what they heard.

Maybe it’s not a good example — maybe it’s just the example that I lived in the Ontario legislature — but when we had debates and discussions when a bill came forward, we worked at it and didn’t skip around and adjourn and not come back to it. We talked things through. We got to a point where, responsibly — most of the time — the points had been made. They’d been heard in committee; they made sure there was a full range of witnesses. In fact, every group was able to put forward names, so you could tell there was a full range of views coming forward. Then we debated it out in the legislature, and we came to the point where we voted.

The problem here — and the reason it sticks in my craw that I’m going to support time allocation — is because I have seen with this bill that we have had fulsome debate. In fact, nobody has really talked about the fact that there was a bill in the prior Parliament — Bill C-10 — that was the same as this. It has been around a few times here. We’ve had fulsome debate in this chamber. We had fulsome committee hearings. If that makes up for something that was lacking in the other chamber, as Senator Wallin pointed out, then we have done that; we have made up for that.

I think the characterization that I heard earlier tonight from the leader of the opposition, namely that the government was ramming this through, was unfortunate. I don’t think that is an accurate description. We are at the message stage. For those who are listening and wondering what this is all about, we don’t have the bill before us right now. We are debating putting a time limit on how long we can debate about the message that came from the other place, and the question, fundamentally, is do we accept the message or send it back? And yet, a number of people there would propose that the six hours that have been set aside, one, is not enough; two, is the representative ramming it through; and, three, is not respectful of the voices. None of that, in my view, is true.

I wish we would have an opportunity to have a real debate about the vision of reform in the Senate. If the opposition is tired of feeling like they’re not respected in the things they say, I would say that I respect them in the things they say. I don’t often respect them in the things they do in terms of how they conduct themselves in this place, but I have to say that sometimes I descend to the same level. I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. You’re the one who has to worry about that the most.

But I would love to have that discussion. I’m not opposed to seeing opposition voices and the Conservative values brought forward. I believe in cognitive diversity. I believe in having all these views on the table. I do oppose you trying to label who I am in my politics, like the colleague directly across from me who tonight said, “You’re a Liberal.” That’s interesting. I voted Conservative, and I’ve voted New Democrat. Sorry, Prime Minister, I’ve never voted for your party.

Don’t tell me who I am. I have my own values and politics, and I bring them to bear in the best way I can in the spirit and respect of what I think this chamber is about. The basic problem is that I don’t think we have an agreement about what this chamber is about.

Thank you very much, Your Honour.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Do you wish to speak or ask a question, Senator Audette?