Senator Housakos: The fact seems to contradict what the government is trying to articulate. At the end of the day, we’re talking about how the board of directors of the foundation resigned in unison. Clearly, there’s something there that draws suspicion. Furthermore, we have sources from the intelligence community that have actually gone public right now through the media and have said on many occasions they tried to inform the Prime Minister of egregious behaviour and direct threats to our democracy. There are reasons why we’re asking all these questions, Senator Gold.

Speaking of foreign money laundering, also at the same cash-for-access dinner with the Prime Minister was the founder of WealthONE Bank of Canada, which at the time was awaiting approval for federal regulators to begin operating in Canada as a domestic bank rather than as a foreign bank. Wouldn’t you know it, similar to the donation of the Trudeau Foundation, WealthONE magically received their long-awaited approval just a few short weeks after this particular dinner.

Senator Gold, fast forward to just a couple of months ago, and WealthONE Bank of Canada was slapped with almost $700,000 in fines by Canada’s anti-money-laundering watchdog, FINTRAC, or the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. FINTRAC cited numerous failures to comply with federal law designed to guard against terrorist financing. In response to questions about this, your government simply said that the matter was closed.

My question to you is this: What did the founder of WealthONE promise Justin Trudeau at this dinner that resulted not only in favourable regulation very quickly but, furthermore, the government turning a blind eye when it came to money laundering and simply saying the case was closed and not giving detailed answers? Is there another donation to the Trudeau Foundation that we should perhaps be investigating deeper?

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader in the Senate. Senator Gold, I want to take you back to a dinner I asked your predecessor about in November of 2016. None other than Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was the headliner, shall we say, at this intimate, cash-for-access dinner at the private Toronto residence of an individual with close ties to the communist regime in Beijing. Someone else with close ties to that regime was also in attendance — Mr. Zhang Bin. He’s important because he’s the one under whose name — or so we were told — a sizeable donation was made to the Trudeau Foundation just weeks following that infamous dinner.

As a foreign citizen, neither Mr. Zhang nor Beijing’s communist regime — or any other foreign entity — can make political donations in Canada. However, they seem to have found a way around those pesky Canadian electoral laws by essentially laundering such a donation through the foundation bearing the Prime Minister’s name. The Prime Minister claims he’s not involved in the foundation, but a lot of suspicions have arisen. It was actually the Prime Minister’s brother who signed and issued the receipt for what we now know was an illegal donation.

My question for you, Senator Gold, is this: Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and formally cease all involvement with the foundation, or will he continue to use it as a scheme to leverage for his government and for the electoral benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Downe, for your intervention. When Conservatives get to their feet in this chamber, it is not because of political expediency, and the language we use is not to appeal to our base or moderate voters. Our objective is to speak on behalf of Canadians on issues and express our feelings on the issues of the day, and that’s what we have done.

Your Honour, I spent some time this morning — not a considerable amount of time because I was informed shortly before that we would have this opportunity — and looked back at previous rulings. This chamber operates on the premise of procedural rules, our existing Rules that are in writing, and, of course, in large part, based on precedent. I tried to look up cases in the history of this august chamber when parliamentary language was called into question. I have to say that there haven’t been that many instances. There have been rulings by Speaker Molgat, Speaker Kinsella and Speaker Furey.

I will go back to March 1, 2000, and read a couple of excerpts, obviously consistent with what Senator Downe was speaking to. Speaker Molgat said:

I remind honourable senators that the position of the Speaker in this place is very different from that of the Speaker in the other place. The practice and long-established custom is that senators regulate themselves, and that the Speaker has a limited responsibility insofar as interfering.

Also, toward the end of the ruling:

Having said that, honourable senators, the rules indicate that as Speaker I have no authority in this matter. I do not have, as the House of Commons has, the authority to name a senator. If I did take that authority, I would have no means of enforcing it. It is up to the chamber.

That is as Senator Downe pointed out.

Honourable senators, when it comes to language that is not parliamentary, there is no rule in our chamber that lists unparliamentary language. They do have that list in the House of Commons and in various other chambers. Of course, the beauty of this chamber is that it has ultimate leeway and the Speaker is not an arbitrator, like in the House of Commons, but more a barometer.

More importantly, I also want to point out, colleagues, that if we get into this habit of calling a point of order on every single word that we personally find offensive or not acceptable, depending on which side of the political issue we fall on, we will have points of order coming out of our ears, and the Speaker will be busier ruling on points of order than he will be calling votes on government legislation.

I was offended during Question Period today. And I think the government leader was offended when he heard the word “scheme” in my question. I saw his comportment: he took offence. I felt, based on the issue I was asking about at the time, that a scheme is in place, and he clearly doesn’t believe that is the case.

He then got up, and in his response he accused me of a “smear.” To “smear,” if you look up the definition, is pretty offensive. He might have actually offended my sensibilities, and I could have jumped up on a point of order — not during Question Period, because, if you know procedure, colleagues, you are not allowed to stand up on a point of order during Question Period and routine business. That is the tradition in this place.

There are two issues just on the Rules: number one, there is no prescriptive language in this chamber that is not parliamentary; and number two, there is no history of the Speaker having the authority to exercise and remediate what the chair might deem to be unacceptable. Having said that, because I have had the privilege to serve in that chair, the chair has the leeway to make sure there is order and decorum in the chamber and, of course, our Speaker has done an excellent job of that.

The language that is being called to question on this point of order is language that I’ve been using consistently during Question Period for a number of months, to be honest with you. I think it is consistent and applies to this government and this Prime Minister. I think it is grossly unfair, given the leeway and benevolence that the Speaker has shown in allowing me to use that language for such a short period of time, if, suddenly, he would find it offensive because someone’s sensibilities were tested more than usual. Those are some of the points that I wanted to share with the chamber.

Again, I call upon all of us to understand that this is a house of parliament, and we sometimes engage on very controversial and contentious issues. In the heat of debate, on legislation or in Question Period or at committee — even sometimes with our best friends — we will sometimes feel that somebody crossed the line when it came to addressing us or the issues that we believe in.

I’m sure His Honour will take this under advisement and come back with a sage ruling, and I will, of course, acquiesce to that final ruling. Thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos moved second reading of Bill S-247, An Act to amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material).

Hon. Leo Housakos: Will Senator Tannas take another question?

Senator Tannas, I thank you for this. Obviously, I know you’re always trying to find a compromise in the spirit of cooperation. You said that in the ideal world, it would be in the bill; it would be in the law. But you said that this is the best we can do and that this is the best we’ve been presented with.

Presented with by whom?

It’s not up to the executive branch of government to be dictating directives to Parliament. It’s not. It’s the other way around. It’s up to Parliament to be dictating to government on behalf of its constituents.

We also have a constitutional obligation. You talked about the Constitution. It’s black and white in the Constitution that we have the same rights, privileges and authority as the House of Commons. Yes, we exercise that authority with a great deal of prudence, because, colleagues, we are an unelected body, and we have to be cognizant of that at all times. But we’re equally bestowed this great privilege that, when the government or the Crown does something that is so egregious to a large number of Canadians, we’re compelled to speak on their behalf.

Even though you’re not a full standing member of the committee, you participated in many deliberations, and you know there are a large number of user-generating Canadians — millions — that are concerned by this.

What would be the harm if so many of us feel like that? And the committee was unanimous in its decision after the testimony. It was unanimous in these amendments. Why wouldn’t we, one more time, press the government and make them understand that these amendments are coming on behalf of millions and millions of Canadians, and they want it within the body of the law?