Senator Gold: The decision of the CBC to pursue a lawsuit against the Conservative Party, or anybody else, is a decision made by the CBC, and has nothing to do with the government.

The question of where the money came from, whether it came from ad revenue or taxpayer revenue, as you have asserted without knowledge one way or the other, is also a matter for the management of the CBC and, by extension, the board of directors of the CBC — not for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you for agreeing to answer my question.

In a country where a majority government can be elected when one party wins between 37% and 41% of the vote, that means that 60% of the people did not vote for that government. Are you saying that if there are ever changes in government, we should speak for the 60% who didn’t vote for that government and prevent its bills from being passed?

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, it’s how the mandate is structured. The terms of reference for Mr. Johnston’s mandate are massive, including investigating foreign election interference now and historically; studying all communications between the PMO, Trudeau’s ministers and their offices on this issue to find out what they knew, when they knew it and what they did or didn’t do about it; determining what Canada’s security intelligence services recommended to fight foreign interference; resolving any outstanding questions not dealt with by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP, and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, NSIRA; recommending:

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, it’s how the mandate is structured. The terms of reference for Mr. Johnston’s mandate are massive, including investigating foreign election interference now and historically; studying all communications between the PMO, Trudeau’s ministers and their offices on this issue to find out what they knew, when they knew it and what they did or didn’t do about it; determining what Canada’s security intelligence services recommended to fight foreign interference; resolving any outstanding questions not dealt with by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP, and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, NSIRA; recommending:

. . . changes in the institutional design and co-ordination of government assets deployed to defend against or otherwise deal with such interference; and

To report on any other related matters of importance.

How on earth could one person do all those things? I guess that’s why they needed a special rapporteur. Mr. Johnston is supposed to do an interim report on all this by May 23, then continue “rapporteuring” until October 31.

However, if he were to decide next month that there should be a public inquiry, what would be left to “rapporteur” on? Prime Minister Trudeau has structured Mr. Johnston’s mandate to try to placate Canadians and replace a public inquiry by putting a less transparent process in the hands of a trusted family friend and Trudeau Foundation member.

When will this government drop the smoke and mirrors and just call a public inquiry?

Senator MacDonald: Could you repeat the question, please, senator?

Senator Dalphond: I guess it is a bit like in court. The first test is the smell test. If I like the smell, I have a tendency to favour the answer, but this is not the test we have to apply here.

The test here is what our constitutional role is further to that message. Some will like the message, some will not like it, but this is not the answer.

The answer is whether, further to an analysis, we find we have the constitutional authority to say no and insist upon one or more amendments. The answer, as I’ve tried to demonstrate in my speech, is that there is no reason here to justify insisting upon any of the six amendments that were rejected. Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, it is my duty as a senator and my honour as a grandfather to rise today and bring you the fourth instalment of “Myla Plett’s Curling Adventures.”

As you know from my last instalment, Myla and her team have been on an impressive winning streak. They won the Canadian Under-18 Girls Curling Championships in Timmins, Ontario, followed by a silver medal at the Canada Winter Games in Prince Edward Island in March. From there, they headed to Rouyn-Noranda in Quebec for the 2023 Canadian Under-21 Women’s Curling Championships.

Betty and I were not able to be there in person this time, but I understand that someone may have almost dialled 911 because Team Plett was on fire. They played 10 games in eight days and went 10 and 0 for a perfect winning record, clinching the gold medal after defeating Newfoundland and Labrador in the final! Following their earlier 9 and 0 streak at the Canadian Under-18 Curling Championship, that puts them at an incredible 19 and 0 between the two events.

Colleagues, Myla was extremely surprised and excited to find out that this victory was a historic achievement because it is the first time in Canadian curling history that a team has captured both the Under-21 and the Under-18 titles in the same year!

The Calgary Sun noted:

It’s another chapter in an astonishing and ongoing championship run for Plett, vice-skip Alyssa Nedohin, second Chloe Fediuk, lead Allie Iskiw —

— as well as their coaches, Blaire Lenton and David Nedohin.

I couldn’t agree more. Their achievements have been remarkable, and they have made history in Canadian curling. Team Plett’s win at the Under-21 Nationals means they will now spend the summer and fall training and then will be off to Lohja, Finland, for the 2023 World Junior-B Curling Championships as Team Canada. If they secure a podium spot there, they will be back in Finland in February 2024 for the 2024 World Junior Curling Championships.

Colleagues, Myla and her team are representative of Canada’s many amazing athletes. They have dedicated countless hours to their training and have worked tirelessly to perfect their skills. Their commitment to excellence is an inspiration to us all.

I also want to congratulate the Alberta men’s team for their incredible victory at the Canadian Under-21 Curling Championships as well. Skip Johnson Tao, third Jaedon Neuert, second Benjamin Morin and lead Adam Naugler demonstrated great skill, determination and teamwork to bring home the gold medal. Their success, along with Myla’s team, is a testament to the strength of Canadian curling and the talent of our many young athletes.

Colleagues, I invite you to join me in congratulating Team Plett on their historic win, along with the Alberta men’s team and all the young athletes who participated and continue to make us proud.

Senator Gold: Unfortunately, as I said, I do not have an answer to that question.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I simply do not accept the characterization that this is patronage. You cited — as you have on many occasions — a flurry of things, which you continue to return to. I won’t answer each and every one of them.

The Prime Minister’s trip, his most recent vacation, was cleared by the former Ethics Commissioner before the fact. It is not a question of patronage, and I do take objection, frankly, and I’ll speak only for myself, to the way in which you characterize our former Governor General in this question and in others.

Senator Carignan: Government Representative, the room at Prospect Real Estate Villas in Ocho Rios is available next week. A seven-day stay would cost $53,541. Unfortunately, the Senate is in session, so I won’t be able to go. Why does the Prime Minister tend to pick hotel rooms that cost more than $6,000 a night? Why does he need a hotel room that costs more than $6,000?

Senator MacDonald: Certainly.

Senator Plett: Yes.

Senator Dalphond: Senator MacDonald, did you think about this amendment before the first amendment or after the first amendment?

Senator Dasko: Thank you for the enthusiasm. Senator Plett, you have today offered high praise for the six amendments that were rejected by the House of Commons. You have lauded them, and you said that you insist on the entire amendment package.

However, senator, you did not support the bill with these amendments in it at third reading. I ask you, how can you urge us to insist on the 26 amendments when you yourself did not support them at third reading of the bill?

Senator Cotter: But eventually that will occur. At that point in time, the opposition leader will cross over to another seat in this chamber; the government leader presumably will cross over to an opposition or other seat. And I imagine that, as they do, they will stop in the middle and exchange binders. The opposition leader will hand over his or her binder of questions and criticisms, and the government leader will hand over his or her binder of answers or, as Senator Plett might say, “non-answers.”

Senator Cotter: But eventually that will occur. At that point in time, the opposition leader will cross over to another seat in this chamber; the government leader presumably will cross over to an opposition or other seat. And I imagine that, as they do, they will stop in the middle and exchange binders. The opposition leader will hand over his or her binder of questions and criticisms, and the government leader will hand over his or her binder of answers or, as Senator Plett might say, “non-answers.”

When that happens, a more muscular and oppositional and less accountable Senate will have a licence, supported by this potential precedent, to relentlessly impede initiatives of that new government.

So, for senators inclined to oppose the will of the elected body here — and, to be honest, on one or two specific points, I would be tempted myself — it’s important to think about the downside long-term consequences of pursuing that which you might most profoundly desire today, potentially to your regret.

My final point is the degree to which there is a genuine link between the “will of the people” associated with a particular initiative, or whether this is so esoteric a thought, based solely on the fact that a particular government was elected — in some respects, this is the Achilles heel of the Salisbury principle.

Can we point to a particular initiative and evidence that that initiative is connected with the will of the people? There is no incontrovertible evidence, but there is at least a meaningful link if a government, when campaigning for office, committed to an initiative and got elected and is advancing that initiative.

So, added to the general principle, the closer to an electoral commitment the core of a government initiative is, the greater the justification for deference to the will of that other place.

That was the case here. A commitment to reform the Broadcasting Act was part of the governing party’s 2021 electoral platform and Speech from the Throne.

In conclusion, we as a chamber have done our work here. We have examined this legislation extensively and well, as nearly all of us have observed with respect to this legislation, both at committee and here in the chamber. We have offered a series of sober second thoughts, many of which were adopted, some rejected. We have worked out a small constructive non-legislative “sober third thought.”

Our work, within the limits of our constitutional authority, has been done and well done. Going further, resisting further, would be unwise, in my submission, and would push us, in my view, to exceed the limits of our institutional authority. We should celebrate this good work, congratulate those who led the work and pushed us hard to adopt Senate improvements and say yes to this amended message. We should agree to go to P.E.I. on vacation. Thank you very much.

Senator Housakos: Oh, so Senator Cordy and Senator Massicotte.

Senator Plett: Well, I hope you will be enthusiastic about my answer. The bill didn’t go far enough. The amendments didn’t go far enough. I said repeatedly in my speech that it’s still a flawed bill, even with the amendments, but the amendments make it a better bill.

Senator MacDonald: I thought of this amendment quite awhile ago, senator.

Senator Cotter: Some hope either later or not at all.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s stated intent 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; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Gagné, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by replacing, in the second paragraph, the words “stated intent” by the words “public assurance”.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Cotter. I want to highlight that in our Constitution — in black and white — when the forefathers created this chamber, it was created with the same rights, privileges and authority of the House of Commons — the Westminster system.

The second thing we have to keep in mind, colleagues, is that when this house was created, the “Father of Confederation,” John A. Macdonald, also made it clear that this place would be an independent body from the other place. It was also made clear that this body would speak for the voices that it was felt were not being adequately spoken for in the other place.

Prime minister after prime minister — I can give umpteen examples, including former Prime Minister Chrétien and even former Prime Minister Harper, who had a hard time swallowing the legitimacy of this institution — have always said that when an elected government does something that is found to be egregious by a large number of Canadians, that is when the Senate should legitimately step in to ensure that those voices are heard.

My question is the following: When I hear your speech, I’m very concerned. If the Senate has lost a great deal of legitimacy in the eyes of the public over the last couple of decades, it is because they asked the following question: Is this institution nothing more than a glorified debating society and echo chamber?