Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for this question. This is a good question, and I would concur with you that we at the Senate have done thoughtful work.

I had the opportunity to say that no witnesses were denied the opportunity to be heard by the Transport and Communications Committee. Congratulations to all members of this committee.

At the same time, we need to listen to the witnesses and interpret their testimonies for what they were. We realized that all across the country, industry, artists and many stakeholders were in agreement with the bill, especially with some amendments that the committee listened to and this chamber listened to. But at the same time, at the end of the day — and I would refer to the Westminster convention and to our parliamentary system — we did our work and we presented the amendments to the government. Of 26 amendments, 20 were agreed to, and at the end of the day, if you do not agree to defer to the other place and to the government, you have a decision to make, and this decision is for you to be a candidate at the next election.

Senator Housakos: Would Senator Saint-Germain take a question?

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: He’s afraid.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Would Senator Dean take a question?

Senator Housakos: Thank you, senator.

[English]

I listened to the story being told by Senator Saint-Germain and even earlier by Senator Gold about how, “Thank God for the ISG — the Independent Senators Group — that we had such robust witnesses come before the committee; we had so many witnesses; we had so many meetings; we had so many amendments,” and so on and so forth.

But the truth of the matter, colleagues, is at the end of the day, if it wasn’t for our filibuster, if it wasn’t for our fighting at every turn at committee and in this chamber, we would have had a vote. If I would have listened to my colleague and the very capable deputy chair, we would have had a vote on this bill a year ago, because it was so urgent to pass.

I was asked every month —

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 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?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Your Honour. Now that we’ve had the very liberal interpretation of the Rules, here come the facts.

Honourable colleagues, now, all of a sudden, Senator Gold has embraced his position of government leader. For seven years, he and his predecessors were running away from that wonderful, powerful position — which is, of course, a legitimate one in the Westminster parliamentary system and legitimate in our own chamber, but he has been running away from it for a variety of reasons.

The truth of the matter is that this chamber has become a majority chamber appointed by the governing party. The reason you have not taken steps over the last eight years to make changes to how time allocation is applied, Senator Gold, is very simple: It is because you have had a very cooperative opposition throughout this time.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I was very surprised by Senator Housakos’ point of order and Senator Carignan’s speech on the issue of respect. It is very rare on this side of the House — well, it doesn’t happen.

During Question Period, from where I sit, I always hear, generally speaking, noises and comments that show a consistent lack of respect for Senator Gold’s answers.

I’m telling you this because from where I am, I see everything. If there was some disrespect in the exchange that you’re talking about — which I doubt — that is something we see every day in QP, absolutely.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Housakos rose on a point of order. I hadn’t called you yet for debate.

Does any other senator wish to comment on Senator Housakos’ point of order?

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan: I agree with my colleague Senator Housakos. This chamber is an honourable place, an exemplary place in Canada where we debate respectfully. When we rise to express an opinion, present a point of view or, in this case, support a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, we expect our point of view to be listened to with respect. When the debate is over or the bells ring for a standing vote, we don’t expect anyone to cross the aisle, come see us, point their finger at us and argue in an intimidating manner. As Senator Housakos said, I’ve never seen anything like it in 14 years.

We must show respect for each other. We must respect each other’s opinions under the rules. We appealed your ruling. Honourable senators may not realize this, but your role is not the same as that of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Once the Speaker of the House of Commons delivers a ruling, it’s final. However, the Speaker of the Senate is a senator like any other. He has the right to his opinion and we have the right to ours. That is why senators have the right to appeal a Speaker’s ruling. The Speaker of the Senate is a senator like any other. He can even participate in debate and vote. The Speaker is a senator like any other and we have the right to express our disagreement without being threatened, intimidated or singled out. We must follow the rules. We must show respect for each other. We are an honourable chamber and we must behave in an honourable way in accordance with the rules of debate.

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos: I have a question for Senator Harder — I mean, Senator Gold. You’re interchangeable.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Housakos, do you have a question?