Hon. Leo Housakos: Yes, it is very clear. First, it is important to understand that there are some differences between the Senate and the House of Commons. A committee chair, like the Speaker of this chamber, is not a referee. They are a regular member of the chamber. I do not know whether most senators are aware of this or not, but the Speaker has the right to vote and express their opinion on political issues.

The chair of a committee has the same rights, privileges and responsibilities. The chair of a Senate committee has the right to vote, to express their opinions and to ask questions. They also have the right to be against a bill. That is nothing new or out of the ordinary. That is the way things have worked for years. If senators want to change that rule or procedure, then let me know, but for now, I am upholding the tradition and rights that have applied here for a very long time.

Hon. Leo Housakos: While some of my colleagues — independent senators in this place — are preoccupied with why critics on government bills criticize and oppose government bills, I will continue to hold the government to account.

[Translation]

My question is for the government leader. Yesterday, an hour before a House of Commons committee meeting, someone let the cat out of the bag. Since 2017, the Liberal government has granted $21.8 million worth of contracts for facilities near Roxham Road to Pierre Guay, a Liberal Party of Canada donor. History is repeating itself. Liberals always benefit from the largesse of the Liberal government.

Sadly, Senator Gold, this comes as no surprise. The difference this time around is that, until yesterday, the Trudeau government refused to disclose the amount, claiming it was confidential information. In 2021, La Presse tried to get this information by submitting an access to information request to Public Services and Procurement Canada, but the request was denied.

Senator Gold, why did your government try to hide how much money it had paid to Mr. Guay? Are you ashamed? Is there any other information you’re hiding? Are other loyal Liberals taking advantage of this situation?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Simons, firstly, what I said at the committee was that I found the testimony interesting. I didn’t say I agreed with it. Second of all, I think you’re talking about an email that went out to stakeholders and party membership of the Conservative Party of Canada, asking them to sign a petition.

I don’t know how the gentleman would have gotten on that particular list. He’s probably a member of the party, and that’s how he got on the list. So, at the end of the day, when you have 680,000 members, as the Conservative Party of Canada currently has — an historic number, the largest number of any political party in the history of the country —

Senator Plett: Wow. How many do the Liberals have?

Senator Housakos:  — obviously, you communicate with a lot of people. It’s called democracy. And, of course, when they receive these emails, they have the right to sign on if they agree with the content. They have the right to do whatever they think is appropriate. It’s called, again, democracy. I don’t think I have anything to apologize for. I think this is common practice in public discourse to be able to communicate your position and points of view with people.

Senator Housakos: For starters, section 4 of the bill is very concerning to me, as it has been a concern to you.

Ultimately, when you have the chair of the CRTC coming before our committee and publicly stating that this bill doesn’t take away from him the right to force platform providers to push algorithms toward a particular direction, that in itself, as far as I’m concerned, controls what people see and what people get to post. At the end of the day, I think there are many witnesses who have come before the committee and are very concerned about how algorithms are being used, both in terms of platform providers and in the future. This bill hasn’t been clear when it comes to these particular issues.

If you’re telling me that these concerns have not been addressed at our committee, I disagree. I’ve heard a number of stakeholders and witnesses address those concerns. I will continue to fight those concerns. If we’re a regular member of the committee, a chair of the committee or if we’re a part of this chamber in a leadership position, nothing takes away our right to express ourselves on a particular issue, and I will continue to do so.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: It’s not complicated. The work of the chair is by nature procedural and concerns the rules. As chair, I have a duty to enforce the rules and ensure that the committee operates fairly and justly. From day one, this committee has worked well, independently and transparently, and we will stay the course.

However, a chair cannot be prevented from taking a position on a bill. That has never been the case. Personally, the problem I see at the moment is that people are opposed to my point of view on the bill and not my work as chair of the committee. The work is about respecting procedure and the rules. Moreover, I have the right and the obligation to speak to a bill, as does the chair of any other committee of this institution.

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos: I have a question for Senator Plett.

Senator Plett, you talked about the good old days of the Senate, and I remember some of those good old days. I remember when I first came here, it was a very simple place — you had the government and the opposition. What this place did back then was very simple: They had people for and people against bills and motions at the end of the day.

But there was also another principle that seems to have faded away in this new Senate, and that is the principle of consensus. I remember being on the Internal Economy steering committee with Senator Cordy — when we had only representatives from government and the opposition — and we understood that the principle of consensus meant that nothing would move on major decisions without us consulting then Senator Cools and Senator McCoy. We made sure that, even though they might not have had representation at Rules or Internal Economy, that we had sign‑off.

Of course, at the time, we also understood, because those independents were a little more aggressive than today’s independents, that the Rules served their purposes. They decided when we adjourned and when we sat, and they exercised the power because in this place the Rules are designed for minority voices.

In the spirit of cooperation, and you having a lot of weight in this place as leader, I suggest — and this would be a good suggestion — that you sit down with the other leaders and find a compromise where the true independents — those who are not affiliated with any group — have a place and feel they have a place in terms of questions during Question Period, committees and so forth.

Would you undertake to take that leadership, in conjunction with the other leadership groups, and come to a consensus so that these minority voices feel that they have a place in this institution?