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]

Hon. Karen Sorensen: Honourable senators, I’m proud to join tourism operators in marking Tourism Week. Representatives from the industry are in Ottawa this week, highlighting the contributions tourism makes to our economy, communities and country and what it will have to offer in the future. It’s no exaggeration to say that Canada is powered by tourism. Tourism has created jobs in every province and territory, employing 1 out of 10 workers. Pre-pandemic, the sector created 748,000 direct jobs and supported 2 million more. But the benefits aren’t just economic. From coast to coast to coast, tourism sustains our communities and allows our Canadian culture to thrive as we share our traditions with visitors from across the country and around the world.

However, the sector has had a very challenging few years and is not out of the woods yet. If we want tourism to thrive, we need to address labour shortages while also investing in our tourism assets so that Canada can continue to offer the cutting-edge, one‑of-a-kind experiences we’ve become known for worldwide. We also need to support success stories like Indigenous tourism, which is in high demand among domestic and international visitors and is a powerful vehicle for Indigenous economic development and cultural revitalization. As well, we need to promote Canada as a destination at home and abroad and incentivize industry to host their conferences and events here.

I learned yesterday at our event that the Shaw Centre in Ottawa has been rated the number one conference centre in the world, which was so interesting. I didn’t have that tidbit of information.

We were happy to see support for tourism in the most recent federal budget, and we’re looking forward to seeing the government’s Federal Tourism Growth Strategy. Canada’s attractions are world-class, and the beauty of our natural wonders is unparalleled, as is the welcoming spirit of our people. I encourage everyone to join me in standing with our tourism operators as they present Canada to the world.

Senator Housakos: You can laugh and find it funny, but one day you will find yourselves in opposition and you’ll realize there is a job to be done. Let me tell you, we passed the vast majority of government legislation quickly — especially through 2016-17, when we didn’t have a majority of Trudeau-appointed Liberals sitting in this chamber. This happened because there was a cooperative opposition.

You can laugh all you want. Throughout that process, Senator Plett always negotiated with Senator Gold and his predecessor, Senator Harder. However, there comes a point in time when the opposition draws a line in the sand. You’re absolutely right; it’s well within the right of government to use time allocation. I’ll repeat that it is a legitimate tool of the Westminster parliamentary system.

Senator Gold, I thank you for highlighting my wonderful ruling back in 2015. You’re absolutely right; I said in the ruling what I say today, consistently, that it’s a legitimate tool of the government — except at that particular point in time we had an honest, transparent and accountable government that named the government leader in this chamber, the deputy government leader and a government whip.

More important to the Rules, Senator Gold, this chamber had a governing Conservative caucus. All of us who understand Westminster parliamentary rules around the world know that it is our political parties that form governments and elect our prime ministers. By the way, our legitimacy comes from those prime ministers who appoint us to the Senate through the process of political parties.

Thank you for that ruling, but read it in context and in its entirety.

Second, in your liberal interpretation of the Rules — vis-à-vis the negotiations that Senator Plett referred to in terms of trying to find agreement between government and the opposition — the word “government” is nowhere in those Rules that were drafted in 1991. The Rules were prescriptive and clear: A political party is required to trigger time allocation. This is not something we’re making up, Senator Gold.

Unless something has changed in the past hour that I’m not aware of — I did check before I came in here — on the Senate website, Senator Gold, you remain identified as “unaffiliated.” I’m pretty confident that anyone watching the televised proceedings today will also see a banner under Senator Gold’s name that says “unaffiliated.” It doesn’t say “government leader.” Yes, you went to deep lengths and, yes, we moved points of order that questioned the ill-thought-out approach of the government playing peekaboo with this chamber, with modelling the government leader as a representative.

You created that context where you have become nothing more than someone who receives information and doesn’t share any with this chamber. I think the words you used are some “passive taker of information.” We didn’t force that upon you. It’s the Prime Minister who forced it upon you and this chamber in the 2015 election when he played partisan politics with this institution. And that’s a reality.

Some have acquiesced to that political agenda. We’ve played along because we understand we lost three successive elections, and it was incumbent on the opposition to make this place work, so we gave a little bit. But there are certain limits.

We’ve all heard Senator Gold and his predecessor Senator Harder say it in media interviews and in this very chamber that they are not affiliated with any political party. Just one example comes from Senator Gold at exactly 2:45 p.m. on June 15, 2021, when being questioned about a former Green Party member, who had espoused some pretty anti-Semitic views, crossing the floor and being welcomed to the Liberal government caucus. Senator Gold, you responded by saying:

At the risk of being pedantic, I represent the government in the Senate. I’m not a member of the Liberal Party.

As for the decision of the party to accept that member and under what circumstances, those questions should properly be directed to the Liberal Party.

Do you remember that? Of course, it isn’t just that she wasn’t welcomed into the Liberal Party, as I said, but she became a Liberal caucus member, a member of the government. But you took no accountability for that. Regardless, there you have it in his own words, colleagues.

Senator Gold in his role as government leader or Government Representative, depending on the day, is not affiliated with the Liberal Party or other political party recognized by Elections Canada. I’m not making this up. And that is the base requirement — the most fundamental requirement — for Senator Gold to be able to play a role in advocating time allocation. It’s clear in the Rules. It’s not ambiguous, not open to Liberal interpretations, not open to Conservative interpretations, just independent factual interpretations.

If that changes here today, or if there ever is a ruling that changes that, I fully expect that a communiqué will immediately go to the Senate Communications Directorate and Senate broadcasting to have Senator Gold, Senator Gagné, Senator LaBoucane-Benson and all identified properly on the website and the televised proceedings of this institution being accountable and transparent to the public that you represent the government.

Even after that, it doesn’t even give you the right to time allocation. You have to have the biggest Liberal caucus, along with your $2 million budget on behalf of the government, to be able to allocate time, Senator Gold, and with agreement. This is the rule — if you have agreement. You don’t have the right to have an agreement because you are not the government leader in the chamber to negotiate. But if you have agreement, rule 7-1(1), Your Honour, states:

At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that —

— and I highlight —

— the representatives of the recognized parties have agreed to allocate a specified number of days or hours . . .

And, without agreement, rule 7-2(1) states:

At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of the recognized parties have failed to agree to allocate time to conclude an adjourned debate on either . . .

I’m not a lawyer, but that’s pretty clear.

In accordance with the rule governing time allocation, the only role for the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government under our current structure is to inform the chamber of the decision of the current Leader of the Opposition as to whether he wishes to impose any time allocation.

The rule clearly states, whether with agreement or without agreement, that the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of recognized parties have agreed or have failed to agree to allocate time. It does not state that the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government is part of making that determination. But the recognized political parties have to do that.

If that were the intent of the rule, it would read, “having come to an agreement with,” or “failing to come to an agreement with.”

None of that wording is there. The wording of the rule purposely distinguishes between the representatives of the government and the representatives of recognized parties. Yet it does not say the agreement or lack thereof must be between government and recognized parties. It clearly leaves the government on the proverbial sideline of that decision, making clear the current wording of the rule — only the representatives of recognized parties can come to an agreement on time allocation. That’s the rule.

For clarity’s sake, Your Honour, we have the definition of “recognized party” in Appendix I, in case anyone has any ambiguity:

A recognized party in the Senate is composed of at least nine senators who are members of the same political party, which is registered under the Canada Elections Act, or has been registered under the Act within the past 15 years. . . .

That’s pretty clear, right? We respect, at least, Elections Canada’s laws. At least most of us do.

Continuing with Appendix I:

A recognized parliamentary group in the Senate is one to which at least nine senators belong and which is formed for parliamentary purposes. A senator may belong to either one recognized party or one recognized parliamentary group. Each recognized party or recognized group has a leader or facilitator in the Senate.

You will notice that the definition even makes the distinction — and this is important — between recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups.

Colleagues, again, we did that in cooperation in order to accommodate a very political agenda that has been imposed on this parliamentary institution.

That’s important because, again, the rule governing time allocation mentions only representatives of the recognized parties — i.e. those affiliated with a political party as recognized by the Canada Elections Act.

Last I checked, the ISG — Independent Senators Group — the CSG — Canadian Senators Group — and PSG — the Progressive Senate Group — are not recognized by Elections Canada. You can apply if you would like to, but you’re not. Only government can allocate time in our Westminster model, and governments are formed by political parties elected in the House of Commons. And, of course, by extension, the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, gives us our legitimacy by appointing us in this chamber. Political parties — nowhere in the rule are representatives of parliamentary groups mentioned.

As I said, we’ve had seven or eight years. We’ve opened the Parliament of Canada Act. There didn’t seem to be any urgency at the time to change that. We’ve had eight years to change the way time allocation has been operating in this chamber. There is no ambiguity around this.

And before anyone jumps to their feet to say this must have been an oversight, a lot of time, effort and resources have gone into changing the Rules of the Senate over the years. These particular rules did not slip our attention. It was not by accident that representatives of recognized parties were singled out when it comes to making an agreement on time allocation. If you don’t wish to take my word for it, how do you explain that we did distinguish and include the leaders of recognized parliamentary groups as it pertains to speaking times during debate on motion of time allocation? So we had the debate.

Rule 7-3(1)(f), Your Honour, states that during debate on the motion without agreement:

(i) the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition may each speak for up to 30 minutes, and

(ii) the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group may speak for up to 15 minutes . . .

So there we referred to leaders of recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups. In other words, they are not interchangeable in this place. That was decided a few years ago with everyone’s participation.

Therefore, when the rule states that the agreement, or lack thereof, must come from the leaders of the recognized parties in our current composition, that leaves only the representative of the Conservative caucus. That was not our choice. That was imposed on this place by the current Prime Minister. He might not like it today. The Government Representative today might like to be the government leader. You might even like to have a Liberal caucus today of 60 members to go with the $2 million budget, but you don’t have it.

It does not include the Government Representative by virtue of your own insistence. You did this. Your government did this; we didn’t.

If we’re still not satisfied with the intent of the wording of this rule and whether there is some ambiguity there for the rule to be interpreted, I’ll refer you to the then-government leader’s testimony at the now-defunct Modernization Committee on May 23, 2018. Senator Harder was addressing, amongst other things, possible ways to make proceedings in the chamber more efficient through the establishment of a business management committee. Obviously, that was not the direction that the Senate went, but it was clear that the notion of time allocation was on our minds. Again, it’s not like this one slipped by without consideration.

Senator Harder did testify at that time whatever approach we took must safeguard “. . . every senator’s individual right to debate, scrutinize, propose amendments and oppose.“

That would certainly explain the wording of the rule on time allocation in protecting the opposition’s role in determining it, especially when you consider that Senator Harder went on to say that the rule should also safeguard “. . . the government’s ability to have a say in the process of debate . . .” as it prepares to identify its own priorities. The duration of the bells, the deferral of votes as well as allowing members of the government leadership to sit as ex officio on committees — increasingly, he said nothing about the Government Representative playing a role in time allocation.

All of that is to further establish that the rule governing time allocation that singles out the representatives of recognized parties as the sole participants in any agreement was and is deliberate.

I have one final note, and it also comes from Senator Harder’s testimony at the Modernization Committee. Senator Harder spoke about the changes to the Parliament of Canada Act to reflect the new rules the Senate was establishing for itself, rightfully pointing out that any such changes would require the consent of both chambers of Parliament. Senator Harder said:

Because the Senate is a self-governing body, it is not for the government to unilaterally come forward with its own view of amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act that could affect the inner workings of the Senate.

Senator Harder stated that he agreed with our eminent former colleague Serge Joyal that any changes should come from the Senate itself and sent to the House to include in any legislation.

Senator Harder then cited the Leader of the Government in the House, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, from his own committee testimony on February 24, 2016, Your Honour. Minister LeBlanc stated:

I would be amenable to suggestions that Senate colleagues would have or whatever process you, Madam Chair, or your colleagues think is appropriate. . . .

You’ll appreciate that it’s not up to somebody who is serving in the House of Commons to come and suggest to senators how you may want to change or adjust your own Rules. . . . I would be happy to work collectively or collegially to ensure that if the government brings in a bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, we at the same time fix, amend, modernize or correct whatever you or your colleagues think might be important . . . .

Colleagues, Your Honour, our rule on time allocation is clear. It was put in place with the agreement of the Senate and in accordance with the reality of there no longer being a government caucus or a government leader who identifies as being affiliated with the governing party. This isn’t a holdover rule that hadn’t had time to change. We’ve made changes to reflect that it is no longer a chamber of political caucuses only.

If the government is allowed now to invoke time allocation, we are allowing the government to set the rules in this chamber with no barriers. I don’t just think it’s out of order; I would go so far as to say it is a breach of our privilege and a breach of the principles in this institution, which is we respect the rules of Parliament.

Even if you and everyone else in this chamber believes the government leader should be allowed to invoke time allocation regardless of their affiliation or lack thereof, that is a rule change that should not be decided in this manner. There are proper procedures. We can send this to the Rules Committee to be properly studied and allow that committee to report back to the chamber and follow the rules of Parliament.

In doing this now, the government is placing the Speaker as well, as my honourable colleague Senator Plett said, in a very untenable position. It is not his role to write or to overturn the Rules, Senator Gold, especially at the whim of someone from the other chamber — the Prime Minister — who is enforcing rule changes in this institution.

At the end of the day, Senator Gold, the Prime Minister has appointed a majority of senators in this chamber whose rhetoric fits the government’s. They articulate the government positions, they vote overwhelmingly for the government positions. We fund right now the leadership of the government in this chamber even though it has denied for seven and a half years that they are the government until, of course, today you have embraced government, so I don’t understand why this peekaboo charade continues to go on in this institution.

If it does — if there is a genuine willingness for independence — let’s show it and make sure that we don’t trample over the basic written Rules because this is a place of lawmaking, Your Honour. And if we as a place of lawmakers don’t respect our own Rules, how in the world are we going to have any legitimacy as an institution in the eyes of Canadians?

Thank you, Your Honour.

Senator Plett: It has not — and I don’t say that as a shot at any senator here, but I cannot make an argument here without senators taking offence and saying, “Don Plett is attacking me.” I’m sorry, but that’s not what I’m doing.

I’m attacking the Liberal Party of Canada because I believe they are the worst thing for this country; I believe that. I respect your beliefs — respect mine. I believe this Prime Minister is the very worst prime minister that this country has ever had, and that includes his dad — and he and I didn’t get along. But at least when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the Prime Minister, I felt that we had an adult in charge of our country.

I say that here, and that is somehow unparliamentary, and we’re being bad people because we express our opinions — because we’re political.

Senator Gold wants to have the power to do this, but he didn’t have the power before. Now, our Speaker has rewritten the Rules to give him the power to cut off debate. Again, it doesn’t matter how you feel about it. Two hours ago, you did not have the right to do what you can now because of the Rules — one individual rewrote the Rules, whether you like that or not. You can shake your head all you want; that is simply the fact of the matter.

The Rules are clear. When it says “recognized parties,” Senator Gold, it doesn’t matter; that’s not a big word to change — recognized parties, or recognized groups.

I think Senator Dalphond somehow interpreted recognized groups having the same power and the same rights as recognized parties because the leaders of the recognized groups received a raise in pay. And Senator Gold receives $92,000 for being the Leader of the Government. I don’t know where that plays into it, but the fact of the matter is that the other recognized groups do not have the same power that the opposition has or the same power that the government has. That was intentional.

Senator Harder was very much instrumental in opening up that Parliament of Canada Act, and when Minister LeBlanc was here today, many of us had conversations with the minister at that point. He made commitments to me; I won’t share them here, but he made commitments to me. He said, “This is what we want. This is as far as we want the chamber to go.” They recognized four groups. They didn’t want to go beyond that; they made it clear. Senator Saint-Germain will attest to that, as will Senator Tannas, I’m sure, and Senator Cordy. They will attest to this being what Minister LeBlanc said: “We don’t want to go beyond that.”

If they wanted you to have the power that you have now gotten through the back door — you couldn’t get through the front door — they would have given it to you. They would have dealt with it.

Today, Senator Lankin said, “Why send it to the Rules Committee? That’s where things go to die” — and we can’t have a committee that works on consensus. Why? We had committees that worked on consensus when we had the two most partisan parties in Canada, and they were the only parties here. We dealt on consensus. Everything that we did at the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration — Senator Housakos, you were there, and Senator Furey was there — was done by consensus. That was with two political parties. Now, all of a sudden, when we have a non-partisan chamber, we can’t deal on consensus anymore.

Colleagues, think about that for a while when you say that you are making this chamber less partisan — because you’re not.

I’m admitting to what I am: I’m a Conservative. I’m proud to be a Conservative. I’m proud to have conservative values. If you are proud to have liberal values, then stand up and say that. Don’t tell us that you are independent and you will vote your own way, and then you vote — 96% of the time — in favour of the government.

Senator Gold said that we had a deal, or at least he indicated a deal. In my previous life, I did a lot of negotiating. I negotiated on behalf of municipalities, and I negotiated on behalf of different organizations. When there was a negotiation, there were two sides, at least, talking.

The fact of the matter is, colleagues, that Senator Gold did say, without question on last Monday, that he would have liked to have had this bill passed by last Thursday. There’s no question — no denial there.

Typically, Senator Gold asks Senator Saint-Germain first regarding what she’s planning to put up for speakers. He then asks me. He then typically goes to either Senator Tannas or Senator Cordy and asks for their opinions — he did that. I will not share their opinions; I will only share mine. I said, “Senator Gold, we don’t have a motion for this. You’re asking me to tell you how many speakers we’re going to have, and I don’t have a motion. I would like that, and then I’ll be prepared to debate this and discuss it.” I don’t think anyone can deny that’s the conversation. He didn’t know why.

One of the senators said, “It will be a two-line motion. It doesn’t take a long time.” And I said, “You’re right. How long would it take you to write that?” It would take my staff about 10 minutes. This government has had two weeks, and they haven’t written this two-line motion. Why?

Then, I have to raise my suspicions a bit: Why aren’t they giving us a motion? It is a very simple thing. So I said, “Tomorrow, when we see that motion” — because I was told we would have it before midnight. I didn’t have it before midnight. My chief of staff did, but I was in bed when he got it. God love him, he didn’t wake me; he waited until the next day to give me the motion.

That day, we debated that motion. Senator Tannas offered an amendment. The next day, the government accepted that amendment. Talks were going on. Senator Gold called me about that amendment and whether or not we would support it. I suggested to him to at least wait until tomorrow — and we probably will, but I would like to wait until tomorrow because I would like to contemplate because I haven’t talked to my caucus. I’m not wanting to put words in your mouth, Senator Gold. He said, “Okay, let me think about that.” Then he called back and he said, “No, we’re planning on going ahead today.” I said, “Okay, Senator Gold, but we can’t support that today, so we will take the adjournment and we will likely pass it the next day,” which we did. We passed it the next day. We didn’t have a vote; we agreed to it. Senator Gold said, “Don, I think you and I should talk further this week.”

Honourable senators, I say this honestly. I did not believe that he was still thinking he was getting a bill on Thursday. I said, “Yes, we should. I would be happy to talk.” I said maybe we would talk before our leaders’ meeting next Monday. He said, “Well, I think we should talk earlier. I said, “Okay, maybe we can talk Thursday.” But, I said, “Senator Gold, I hope you understand that we’re not ready to call question on this on Thursday.” I’ll be the first one to admit that.

There’s no negotiation there, colleagues. We haven’t even started debate. We have not even started debate in this chamber, and he wants, in one day, for me to agree to something that has taken two-and-a-half or three years’ time? How on earth the Speaker could make a decision today on that is beyond me because Senator Gold gave us less than 30 hours to deal with a bill that had been around for three years? Is this how rulings are supposed to be done?

Again, it doesn’t matter, honourable senators, what side of the political spectrum we’re on. We have an obligation to Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada speaks for 7 million-plus Canadians. We won the popular vote in the last two elections. We have a duty — an honour-bound duty — to speak on behalf of those 7 million Canadians, and there will be more in the next election. We have a duty, and for us to be considered as people who are filibustering and as people who are not cooperating in the Senate because we are defending Conservative values, I really find that disconcerting.

I’ve been asked lately — and I know that many of you would encourage that I take the advice of some people and say, “Don, why are you beating yourself over the head? Why don’t you retire from the Senate?” I know there are probably those who would be happy to give me a going away present if I did that, but I say there are still more good days than bad. I still have hope. I said that to a couple that was in my office today. I still believe that I am speaking on behalf of many Canadians, and I want to continue to support those Canadians. I want to speak on behalf of those Canadians.

Again, this is not about whether or not we support time allocation. I have never said, Senator Gold, that we don’t. I fully expected, Senator Gold, that if we did not move this bill forward in the next week or two — and you and I have had those discussions, Senator Gold. You and I had those discussions just a few months ago when you offered. You said, “Don, if you need some help, I can probably help you.” There was no question that we were anticipating that we’ll have a limited amount of time to debate this bill in this chamber before you would at least try time allocation.

Would we have done the same thing we are doing today? Yes, we probably would have because I still believe you don’t have the right. By the rules, you don’t have the right on a number of issues, which I pointed out earlier. We would have still made that argument. But you, Senator Gold, would have given us an opportunity — you would have given Canadians an opportunity that you are taking away from them, not the opposition. We are here ready to debate this.

Yes, I presented an amendment the other day. I presented a very reasonable amendment, and that amendment was to simply go back to the government one time and say that we expect you to accept our amendment. That was the amendment. There was nothing untoward about that amendment. The fact of the matter is we all know procedures, and we needed to make sure that we wouldn’t be — Senator Lankin and I go back to a private member’s bill a few years ago where she got the better of me. Full marks. I hold no grudges.

Do we have to make sure that won’t happen? Yes. Is that in any way an intention to filibuster this for three months? No. We knew full well, Senator Gold, that there would come a time when you would probably — unless we allowed this to go forward — do what you did tonight, and we would have hoped that we would have gotten what we believe was the right ruling. You obviously believe you got the right ruling, and that’s fine. We’ll do another battle on another day.

However, for you to do this after six hours of debate — six hours, not on the very first day of debate — to refuse to talk to the Leader of the Opposition, refuse to come to the Leader of the Opposition. When this happens — I talk to the House leader in the other place all the time. When Mark Holland plans on doing time allocation, he lets Andrew Scheer know, as well as the other House leaders. What do you do? I come across the floor on Thursday, right in front of your desk and I said to you, “Senator Gold, should we have a meeting?” Now is not the time. Half an hour later, your notice of motion comes forward, and you suggest that we aren’t to be trusted? That we aren’t the honourable people? I consider that very questionable.

I asked you at that time if we should meet. Whether that bill passed on Thursday or whether that bill passes today, this Thursday, next Tuesday or even next Thursday, what difference does that make? Unless the Prime Minister is running scared and he wants to get out of Ottawa for a while, and he says, “Senator Gold, Senator Furey, you had better help me out here. We can’t be in Ottawa.” You’re shaking your head. We’ll see whether there is any relevance to that at all because other than that, Senator Gold, what difference on a bill that’s been here for three years does another week make? I can’t understand that.

You could have come to me, Senator Gold, at any point and said, “Don, if you don’t give me this bill by this time, I’m going to invoke time allocation.” That would have been the professional and honourable thing to do. I would have accepted that. I would have stood here and I probably would have torn my shirt like I am now and say that you don’t have the right to do that, but at least that would have been the proper way to do that instead of backdooring. That doesn’t go away.

You suggest I broke a deal. No, the government broke a deal. You know very well — and I won’t raise it — about the deal that you broke to me one time, Senator Gold. I would be very careful how often you tell me I broke a deal before I start talking about that one because that one was a whole lot more personal than this one. You don’t want that brought up on the Senate floor, Senator Gold. I would be careful in how often you tell me that I have broken a deal. I broke no deal. The government broke a deal. The government did not do their consultations. So I said, Senator Gold, the government did not own up, did not do what they were supposed to do and did not do what they said they had done, so we can’t go forward with this. It had nothing to do with Pierre Poilievre’s videos or Senator Housakos’s videos. It had to do with standing up for Canadians.

This is censorship gold on a censorship bill.

Let me end off on this, Senator Gold, and you can turn around and say the same to me: You will reap what you sow. In the next election, you will reap what you sow. This Senate will again become a chamber of sober second thought where people will respect each other, and that will happen after the next election, whether you like it or not. People will again respect each other here, whether they are on one side of the government or the other. We will have respect, even if we get angry like this over the course of the evening. I will fly Friday morning with a couple of my Manitoba colleagues, and we will rub shoulders and tell each other how much we love each other on the weekend, and then on Monday or Tuesday we’ll come back here and do what we’re doing here today because that, colleagues, is the way this chamber should work. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Again, government leader, the tradition and history of this place are that the government leader, especially on bills and motions as important as this, indulge the Senate and take questions. I take exception with a number of the things you said in your speech. If you don’t give the opposition an opportunity to address them with questions and answers, again, it creates that frustration that we have in this place.

I just want to deal with a couple of issues. You brought up how the opposition uses adjournments in order to stifle things. Every group in this place, when they want to stifle something, slow something down, take their time with it or negotiate it, take an adjournment on motions. It is nothing new. The government does it, the opposition does it, and, of course, since 2016, all groups do it.

The other thing is that I love the fact that you’re actually starting to pay attention to Pierre Poilievre’s videos. But what I take exception with is that you think it is somewhat partisan that Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, is publicly involved in a public debate opposing a government bill that Rachael Thomas, the critic on Bill C-11 in the House of Commons is on video —

I am asking a question, Your Honour, but I would like to give him some context. Colleagues, again, there is a tradition in this place of allowing some context in questions and answers.

The government leader said that Pierre Poilievre and Rachael Thomas in the other place were out there campaigning against Bill C-11. Are you equally offended when Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Rodriguez put out their videos or when they defend in the public arena and talk about how Bill C-11 is a good thing? Are you equally offended?

Senator Gold: I’m very reluctant to not answer questions, but I’m also mindful that we have a finite amount of time. I will take one question out of respect for the senator who has asked me and for the institution. Then, however, with your indulgence, I’m not going to take any further questions to give everyone else who wishes to speak on this time to speak.

Senator Housakos: Of course I have a question. I wouldn’t get up on my feet without having a question.

Senator Saint-Germain, at the end of the day, we’ve had many instances as a chamber where we put forward amendments, and the amendments put forward — that we supported as well — by your colleagues in your committee were watered-down amendments to protect user-generated content compared to the ones that were defeated.

So my question is: Why wouldn’t the Senate just insist one more time to the government to listen to those — as you pointed out — thousands of user-generated content creators and witnesses and tell the government that we insist on these reasonable amendments as proposed by the ISG senators and supported at committee by all of us and tell the government it is in the interest of the voices of reason in the country that they support those amendments?

Senator Gold: That, too, fails the test of common sense.

However, I am hopeful, as I expect that, in due course, this chamber will decide that there has been enough waiting. We have much work before us to continue to modernize the Senate of Canada. Let’s get to it.

Thank you, Your Honour, for indulging me.

Senator Plett: You would speak on my behalf. And you will put —

Your Honour, I ask that Senator Lankin refrain from interrupting me while I am speaking. I think this is a serious issue. She may not.

Your Honour, I have the utmost respect for you personally. I have the utmost respect for the position you have been put in and that you should not have been put in. I understand why you are in this position, Your Honour. I understand the pressures that you have been put under. You and I will leave this chamber tonight as friends, respecting each other. I will be your friend when you retire, and I will wish you all the best. But today, Your Honour, I find it necessary that, pursuant to Rule 2-5(3), I do wish to appeal your ruling.

Senator Plett: Minister, the terms of reference also state that the rapporteur is authorized “to receive written submissions on these issues from interested persons.” I would hope that “interested persons” include whistleblowers, candidates who were targeted by Beijing’s interference or Canadians who have been harassed and intimidated here in our own country by the Chinese Communist Party. However, minister, it’s impossible to find a mailing address or an email address where those submissions can be sent.

Minister, do you know how “interested persons” can get in touch with the Prime Minister’s Special Rapporteur?

He has reached out to me, and I have had an active discussion with him. On the one hand, we can’t say he has an independent role and have the government prescribe from whom and how he would receive information, but the ability for Canadians, including those identified by Senator Plett, to have access to the Right Honourable David Johnston and provide him advice and information is important, so I will ask the Privy Council Office that very good question of how people can offer advice publicly or submit evidence to him. That’s an important part of his work. I’ll also make sure that senators have that information.

Senator Gold: On the point of order.

My apologies, colleagues. Members in the opposition have been heckling speakers — whether it’s me or any members — for years and interrupting us when we try to speak. In this very debate, Senator Plett impugned my integrity. He said that I misled this chamber, which was not true. He said that I moved this for my own personal motives — “self-serving motives” was the term I believe he used. That is speaking very much to motives. It saddens me to have to rise to even remind this chamber of what we all heard.

I think that what happened after the vote is a matter that is something that grown-up parliamentarians can possibly tolerate. I do not think it rises to intimidation, as you have characterized it. In that regard, Your Honour, I hope that you can dispose of this point of order quickly.

This is just yet one other attempt by the opposition to delay proceedings, to deny us as senators our democratic right to pronounce on a bill that has been before us for a very long time. It’s standing in the way of the Senate doing its job on behalf of Canadians. Thank you.

(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 Plett: Shame on you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we welcome today the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, to ask questions relating to his ministerial responsibilities.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, senators do not need to stand. Questions are limited to one minute and responses to one-and-a-half minutes. The reading clerk will stand 10 seconds before the expiry of these times. Question Period will last one hour.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise today in this chamber to talk about the importance of Earth Day, which was celebrated on April 22. Over 50 years have passed since the first Earth Day, and yet, the nine planetary boundaries that are necessary to our survival are under unprecedented threat. We are already existing outside the safe operating space for four of those boundaries, including the loss of biodiversity and climate change.

We cannot afford to delay taking action. Canada, like the rest of the world, must take bold action to deal with the climate crisis. As senators, we have a responsibility to act, not just for ourselves but also for future generations.

We need to adopt a new economic approach that is fair, sustainable and equitable. We need to transition to a low-carbon future, while ensuring that no one is left behind. That means that we need to invest in clean and resilient technologies and infrastructure and ensure a just transition for workers and communities.

[English]

Financial institutions have a catalyzing role to play in providing the necessary funding for this transition. We need a financial sector that is aligned with the Paris Agreement goals and that integrates climate impacts in decision-making processes. This will help us be more competitive with other jurisdictions, such as Europe and the United States, that have already modernized their regulatory frameworks.

Even the multilateral banks such as the World Bank, the Inter‑American Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank are already aligning their activities with the Paris Agreement.

We must also recognize the importance of protecting nature, biodiversity and the ecosystems that sustain life on earth and represent more than 80% of our GDP. This means preserving and restoring lands, reducing pollution and protecting oceans and forests.

Colleagues, the climate crisis is the greatest challenge of our time and will require an unprecedented transformation. It will take us out of our comfort zone, yes, but it is also an opportunity for us to come together and build a better future. Let us use this Earth Day to reaffirm our commitment to protecting our planet and to working together towards a sustainable future for us all.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Welcome, Minister LeBlanc.

Minister, the Prime Minister’s made-up Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference has been silent since being named to this post on March 15.

This is, of course, just what the Prime Minister wanted by naming an old family friend, neighbour and Trudeau Foundation member to the position. The terms of reference for the made-up Special Rapporteur say that he is “to provide reports on a rolling basis.” Minister, think about all the serious revelations about Beijing’s interference in our country that have been reported in the last six weeks. It is obvious that a public inquiry is required, yet we have heard nothing from the Special Rapporteur.

Minister, what communication has taken place between the Special Rapporteur and your government since March 15? Have any reports or recommendations been brought forward? Has he interviewed any ministers or their staff?

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

He has been hard at work. I have had a number of exchanges with officials supporting him, with counsel supporting him. He is meeting with me and cabinet colleagues in the coming days. I know he has been meeting with senior officials. As the Prime Minister indicated transparently at the time he was selected to do this important work, Canadians will see from him in the coming weeks a report on the question of whether further public or other inquiries would be helpful in reassuring Canadians about our democratic institutions. This will be an ongoing effort, and we expect him to be transparent and open with Canadians over the coming weeks and months.

Finally, I hope senators have taken note that his terms of reference were deliberately broad and inclusive to allow the Right Honourable David Johnston to follow the evidence, to go where he thinks it is important to go in order to provide the best advice to the government and to Canadians.

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities: Your Honour, through you, obviously to Senator Plett asking the question, I hope you will indulge me a few moments at what may be the last time I have the privilege of being invited to your chamber with you as presiding officer. Senator Furey and I have been friends for over 30 years, and I’m only 55 years old. Senator Furey has been a political mentor for me and a good friend, and our families have become friends. Your Honour, I wanted to acknowledge your remarkable service to Canada as you prepare to leave this chamber and to say that it has been a privilege to work with you and see the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian preside over one of Canada’s parliamentary institutions. I wish you in your retirement, sir, nothing but success and good health and happiness.