Senator Carignan: Yes.

Senator Housakos: He’s afraid.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Would Senator Saint-Germain take a question?

[Translation]

Senator Saint-Germain: Of course.

Senator Plett: I would not want to repeat what Senator Dalphond said. Somebody might again suggest it’s unparliamentary language. But Senator Dalphond alluded to something like “if it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it’s probably a duck.”

As I said earlier, we plan fully — so I will put everybody here on notice — on asking that Senator Gold be restyled as the “Leader of the Government in the Senate.” That’s what he professed to be today. Yes, I agree, Senator Lankin. We finally got it. That is what the Speaker said today.

Senator Gold, you’re going to have a hard time next week saying you are not the government leader.

Again, we’re not opposed to time allocation. Shortening debate on something that has gotten six hours of debate is not necessary.

This bill got into the Senate — well, there was a deal signed in the spring when we agreed to committee meetings in September. Now, the committee didn’t meet. It became evident in November that more meetings were needed, including for Indigenous witnesses, who had been overlooked, as Senator Klyne pointed out, at that point at committee — something the government did over there. They again neglected to consult with the Indigenous people, so now they had to slow things down.

They broke their word. You say I broke my word on a signed deal. You somehow only get certain facts there. You know why that deal was broken. I told you why that deal was broken. It was because the Government of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada — Justin Trudeau and his cronies — broke the deal in the other place.

How long did it take the House? Message was sent on February 2. Amendments were known since December 14. The House adopted the message on March 30 — three and a half months after, Senator Gold, the amendments were known. Debate on them started on April 18, and Senator Gold put an end to that on April 20. And somewhere this is the opposition’s fault.

When the opposition does their job — as one of the great Liberal prime ministers of this country Jean Chrétien said, the job of the opposition is to oppose. We do our job, and members there say that we’re filibustering, or we’re doing something wrong. We’re doing our job.

I was sent to this place to do something. Senator Gold, you were sent here. You clearly feel that you have received a mandate. You have received direction from the Prime Minister, and you’re doing your job. I respect that part of what you’re doing.

But why, colleagues, can you not accept and respect what the opposition is doing?

We don’t dislike individuals in this chamber. Here’s one thing about Senator Mercer and I: When I attacked Senator Mercer in the chamber, he never took that personally. He never thought, “Don doesn’t like me.” This was a political exchange, and when the Senate debate was over, we went out and had a beer. We travelled together, and we were on parliamentary associations together. For almost all of my time that matched Senator Mercer’s time, we were on the same committees, and we dealt together on those committees — on the Agriculture Committee and on the Transport Committee. We did great work on those committees.

I don’t know how often I have heard today that the Prime Minister has made this a more non-partisan chamber. This chamber has never been as partisan as it is today, colleagues.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. You have misunderstood the point I was trying to make, so thank you for the opportunity to clarify it.

The context within which we’re debating time allocations — the context is the deliberate campaign to kill this bill. This is not an example of speeches being adjourned or time being taken to prepare a speech in order to make sure the contribution is constructive for the advancement of the bill. I cited your leader’s characterization of you as a “Spartan warrior” to illustrate the point that it is no secret, certainly not to members in this chamber. It is one thing to oppose a bill. It is another thing to enlist this body in an effort to kill a bill that has the democratic approval of the majority of the House of Commons and to do so while pretending to be simply seeking to improve the bill.

With the greatest of respect, you may be happy with the title of “Spartan warrior.” I would rather see myself as a defender of democracy, and time allocation is an appropriate tool to be used to combat dilatory, obstructionist delay tactics for purely partisan reasons. It is an appropriate tool to give this Senate and the senators who are summoned here to do work on behalf of Canadians the ability to pronounce, first, on whether or not they agree with the government’s proposal to add six more hours of debate and then have the question called, and, ultimately, at the end of the day, the senators have the right to pronounce whether or not they will accept my proposal to accept the message from the other house.

We were brought here to do work on behalf of Canadians. We were brought here to exercise judgment, and in that regard this motion that I am urging you to support is one which will give us an opportunity to do the job for which we were summoned here, the privilege to serve Canadians and to stop a never-ending campaign, a campaign that would never end but for the invocation of time allocation for the benefit of Canadians. Thank you.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, senator.

[English]

I listened to the story being told by Senator Saint-Germain and even earlier by Senator Gold about how, “Thank God for the ISG — the Independent Senators Group — that we had such robust witnesses come before the committee; we had so many witnesses; we had so many meetings; we had so many amendments,” and so on and so forth.

But the truth of the matter, colleagues, is at the end of the day, if it wasn’t for our filibuster, if it wasn’t for our fighting at every turn at committee and in this chamber, we would have had a vote. If I would have listened to my colleague and the very capable deputy chair, we would have had a vote on this bill a year ago, because it was so urgent to pass.

I was asked every month —

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]

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for this question. This is a good question, and I would concur with you that we at the Senate have done thoughtful work.

I had the opportunity to say that no witnesses were denied the opportunity to be heard by the Transport and Communications Committee. Congratulations to all members of this committee.

At the same time, we need to listen to the witnesses and interpret their testimonies for what they were. We realized that all across the country, industry, artists and many stakeholders were in agreement with the bill, especially with some amendments that the committee listened to and this chamber listened to. But at the same time, at the end of the day — and I would refer to the Westminster convention and to our parliamentary system — we did our work and we presented the amendments to the government. Of 26 amendments, 20 were agreed to, and at the end of the day, if you do not agree to defer to the other place and to the government, you have a decision to make, and this decision is for you to be a candidate at the next election.

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]