Senator Housakos: Your Honour, at some point, Question Period here has to be the opposition asking questions and the government making some feeble attempt to provide an answer.

At the end of the day, government leader, you constantly diminish the questions we ask, but they’re questions that are being asked on behalf of Canadians.

Last week, I took the time to visit a bunch of families with autistic children and a bunch of families who are going to and relying on food banks in order to feed their children and families. They do not live in the same context and bubble as we do in this place and in this town. This government has to first acknowledge there is a problem with inflation and, second, take steps to resolve the problem — rather than continue to print money and continue to add to the deficit, thinking that’s some kind of solution. I think Canadians deserve an answer, government leader.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, in recent days we have had information circulating that high-ranking government officials connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, and the brutal regime in Iran — including the family members of none other than the supreme leader himself — have been seeking refuge right here in Canada. It has been reported that many might already be here.

My question for you, government leader, is very simple. Can you tell us what due diligence the Trudeau government has undertaken to make sure that no individual, or individuals, with links to the IRGC and to this brutal government will be — or have been — granted entry into Canada?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my next question is maybe somewhat of a supplementary to what Senator Housakos already spoke about.

Last week, you will recall that I asked you twice about your government’s reluctance to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, as a terrorist organization. In your answer, you spoke about the separation of powers, implying that it is not your government’s responsibility to decide whether to designate or not to designate — a bizarre response considering that the decision on whether to list an organization as a terrorist entity is taken entirely within the executive branch.

In fact, in 2018, the House government leader’s parliamentary secretary at the time outlined the process for listing the IRGC under the Criminal Code. A criminal or security intelligence report is drafted which documents the entity’s activities. The report is then reviewed by an independent council at the Department of Justice to ensure that the entity meets the legal threshold for listing. If the Minister of Public Safety agrees that this is the test that is to be met, he may make a recommendation to cabinet that the entity be listed.

Leader, the procedure is clear, so is it that your government can’t list the IRGC or that it won’t? Which begs the same question I asked you last week, leader: why?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is again for the government leader in the Senate and it has to do with “JustinFlation.” I have asked about this issue on a number of occasions, and it is an issue that is starting to destroy average middle-class and poor Canadians who are struggling to survive.

I’ll ask the question a little bit differently because in the past I’ve tried to hold this government responsible for some of the things they have done, and, of course, this government never takes responsibility. It’s market forces, international conditions, wars — it’s any other reason but the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Trudeau or his two finance ministers over the last seven years.

Will you agree that, with three small steps, we can solve “JustinFlation”? Number one, will you agree that this government should cap the Liberal government’s spending and taxation of the middle class with the Employment Insurance, or EI, taxes that are being implemented as of January?

Second, cap the Liberal government runaway deficit right now?

The third step, very importantly, unleash the energy sector in this country to produce energy that Canadians badly need to heat their homes, that farmers need in order to fuel their tractors and produce more food and, of course, that the rest of the world is so thirsty for because right now they’re under the grip of a bunch of dictatorships like Russia, Iran and I can go through the list.

Do you agree with those three simple steps the government can take in order to give middle-class Canadians, and those working hard to join the middle class, some relief?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I can tell you that in the 14 years that I have served in this chamber, I have heard a number of questions of privilege. None have gone to the core of what we do here more than this one. I want to thank Senator Tannas for, in a very thoughtful way, bringing up this question of privilege and arguing it factually.

When I first heard of this, it was just before our committee meeting on Wednesday — I believe it was — which I chaired. It raised a number of flags, and I want to address them all.

First, in response to the arguments from the government leader in the Senate, no one is attacking the journalist, their right to maintain their sources or operate and run whatever stories with whatever narrative they feel free to do so.

The story just raised a red flag. It didn’t actually lead to any conclusions — I don’t think — on the part of Senator Tannas hearing his question of privilege, in Senator Plett’s case or in my case. But what that flag did do, it asked questions. And the questions, Senator Gold, it asked were to get some more information from the witness himself, who in testimony before a Senate committee at this chamber said that he felt intimidated and bullied. Those were his words, and he invited us to look at the testimony in the other house in order to confirm that.

Furthermore, your argument, Senator Gold, about questioning the question of privilege on technicality and procedure, about it being brought forward at its earliest opportunity — in itself on an issue so important — is shameful because the government, and you as government leader, should be really concerned about the nefarious nature of these accusations far more than trying to shut them down using some procedural tool.

I will reinforce — because I happen to be the chair of the committee — that, again, in good faith, after the article that raised the flag — after the comments, Your Honour, of the witness before our committee — the committee asked him to table the document that he had from the Commissioner of Lobbying, which he did. That document came to the clerk — at least to my attention — at around quarter to 12 on Thursday. Thus, based on your argument, it was not the earliest opportunity. He wouldn’t be able to make the deadline three hours before that sitting, but, more importantly, the document wasn’t bilingual. I asked the clerk to have it translated, and it was officially tabled with the committee on Monday. I suspect that’s when Senator Tannas saw it, and that in itself raised a lot of questions for me.

That’s in regard to your feeble argument today in defence of this question of privilege.

Now, in terms of my colleague Senator Saint-Germain — I thank you for your arguments, Senator Saint-Germain, because it reinforces how important this question of privilege is. You’re absolutely right; the witness came before us, and he said what he said. You say that in itself shows how he was comfortable; he came before this house of Parliament.

But the truth of the matter is, he was intimidated and bullied to such an extent that as a witness — as an individual Canadian — he felt compelled to go before an officer of Parliament — the Commissioner of Lobbying — a few days or weeks before his testimony to get security of allegations that were made by two parliamentarians. Why were those allegations made? Senator Saint-Germain, when a parliamentarian tells a witness — a Canadian citizen — that they’re a liar and a lobbyist, when they’re before the committee or outside the purview of that committee, that is outrageous.

We have privileges here. We are guardians of this institution, but an individual Canadian citizen who wants to come before a committee and is then attacked by two members of Parliament about lying and being a lobbyist — to the point where he felt compelled to go to the Commissioner of Lobbying to get a letter in order to justify, “Hey, I’m safe,” is inexcusable. That in itself is the argument that there is something deeply nefarious going on here, and we need to get to the bottom of it.

Colleagues, the truth of the matter is that Parliament and the Senate are the custodians of democracy and freedom, and it should be concerning on our part when the executive branch of government overreaches and, at some point in time, feels they can intimidate testimony just because they don’t agree. This is our ultimate job.

Like I said, I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but we have an obligation to get to the bottom of why this individual felt the way he did now more than ever.

Also, if you go to the House testimony, you realize it wasn’t a one-off. There were a couple of people who were bullied to the point where parliamentarians had to be called to order by other colleagues to stop that bullying.

All stakeholders and all individuals need to feel secure when they come before their parliamentary bodies. They need to feel they can come and express themselves without intimidation — without bullying — regardless of which side of the debate they are on. It’s only normal. We expect that courtesy amongst ourselves in this chamber. It doesn’t matter if it’s the opinion of 2 senators versus 103, or whatever the case may be. I think that’s ultimately important.

The fact is that Mr. Benzie, in particular, is not a lobbyist. He is a Canadian content producer who is trying to articulate on behalf of his livelihood and his industry vis-à-vis a bill. The fact that he cannot afford high-priced lobbyists to come to the corridors of power in order to articulate himself is even more reason that we need to make sure these voices are protected more than anyone else’s. We all know the business in this town. High‑priced lobbyists come here — they’re paid to be combative, they send us emails and chase us down the corridors, and they have friends of friends who call us in order to get a hearing. But when, again, a single individual — and that’s what Mr. Benzie is — comes and testifies before our committees, it is incumbent on us to make sure they’re heard.

Colleagues, let’s keep in mind that in 2015, this government promised more transparency, accountability and democracy than ever before. Tampering with a witness and tampering with testimony, either through media or at committee itself, should raise a lot of red flags.

Unlike Senator Saint-Germain, I can tell you — as the chair of a committee who is in constant contact with the clerk — there are a number of witnesses who expressed an interest, at the beginning of our study back in June, in appearing before our committee but who are currently not answering our calls. It’s one thing for witnesses to say, “Sorry, we heard enough testimony, our issues have been addressed and we don’t want to come before the committee.” It’s a whole other situation where I know of a couple of witnesses who were vociferous about coming before our committee in June and are currently no longer responding.

Honourable senators, I will terminate by saying that I think the remedy in the past was to send this to the Rules Committee for review and to have a thorough inquiry, but now, as a chair, I am very uncomfortable, and I question — we should all question — the contamination of this study. We know what happened on the House side. We took measures to make sure it doesn’t happen on this side — that every witness is heard and that we take the time to do a thorough study. But when I start hearing witnesses say they’ve been intimidated, I think there is nothing scarier than that. Our judicial and parliamentary systems have to be transparent, clear and fair.

Your Honour, I leave this to your wisdom to determine.

[Translation]