Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, the only thing your government is doing is trying to obstruct the parliamentary committee from getting to the bottom of things. You’re deleting emails and preventing us from obtaining answers to simple questions. Senator Gold, “ArriveScam” has been slammed by the procurement watchdog and the Auditor General, and it is currently under criminal investigation. Are they all partisan as well? We know that, at minimum, at least 10,000 Canadians were mistakenly sent to quarantine by glitches of this shameful app. Senator Gold, how can your government — in good conscience — continue to fight these Canadians in court and hold them to huge outstanding fines in relation to what we now know was a fraudulent app?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I wasn’t planning to speak on Item No. 31, but I think I’m compelled to do so after months and years of frustration when looking at the evolution of this chamber, particularly the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee — it is moving toward a direction where I think, just like the country, we’re spending an exorbitant amount of money very quickly, without justification. Furthermore, I also see a complete adaptation from what has been the norm in this chamber in the years that I first came here of consensus building and administering the Senate in a non-partisan, transparent, accountable and bipartisan fashion.

Now the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has been taken over, in my humble opinion, with a reflex of whatever the administration comes to us with in terms of expenditures. We acquiesce and say yes. I see a troubling trend, which is the following: If you look at the request here for Budget 2022, the allotment of money that is being requested from this institution is $126.7 million. In 2021-22, it was $121.8 million. I think you will all agree there’s a significant rise in spending, especially when you take a comparative analysis of the volume of government legislation this chamber has dealt with in the last seven years compared to the previous Parliament and government of seven years, the amount of government legislation we debated and voted on, the number of motions that we have debated and voted on and the number of private members’ bills that we’ve dealt with in this institution. More importantly, if you do an analysis of the number of studies and committee work that was done when I came here in 2009 up until 2015, there’s absolutely no comparison.

But let me tell you, if you look at the bottom line as of March 2016 — and March 2016 was the first appointment of this Trudeau government’s independent senators. Of course, we’ve seen the growth of those senators and how that experiment is evolving and continuing to evolve. We’ve all tried to make it work under difficult circumstances.

As of March 2016, the operating budget of the Senate of Canada was $74.6 million. We’ve gone, in a very short period of time, from an operating budget of $74.6 million to $126.7 million. The question I ask is — there’s nothing wrong when you see an organization spend 40% more in terms of expenditures and investments, but you also want to see the return on investment. Quite frankly, I’m concerned that that return on investment isn’t there. That’s why the official opposition — and some take difficulty with the term “official opposition,” but this chamber does have an official opposition, and thank God our role is to make sure we hold the government accountable — has been calling on the government for years and the majority of government appointees to basically take steps to wield in that spending, be responsible and be transparent.

Another concern we have — above and beyond the bottom line — is the fact that we have gone away from an operating philosophy of consensus between the government and the opposition to one where, right now at the Senate Committee on Internal Economy, we’ve seen over the last five or six years more votes on various issues whenever there’s a disagreement. In the past, if you go back again to 2015 and going back for a number of years, I didn’t see that much acrimony. At least at the time when I was there as chair, we always tried to work on consensus. So when we had a deputy chair of the opposition that didn’t agree with something, even though the majority on steering was from the government side or the majority on the Internal Economy was from the government side, we didn’t make those changes or carry on those expenditures. In the spirit of cooperation, accountability and transparency, we have to go back to those operating methodologies.

Another thing that we in the official opposition have been concerned about, and have been voicing those concerns now at Internal Economy for a number of years, is the fact that the administration seems to be taking over this institution. There’s a reflex on the part of the committee to be acquiescing to the Information Services Directorate, to finance or to the various bureaucratic elements of this institution that come to us with proposals instead of the driving force for some of these changes and decisions being senators.

It’s not incumbent on directors of departments to be going to Internal Economy and basically saying, “We think this is best for the Senate,” and Internal Economy saying, “Yes.” Once upon a time, these decisions were taken by senators, for senators and for this institution, and quite frankly, a number of us who have been around for a long time feel that these important issues aren’t being consulted and brought to the leadership of our respective groups before decisions are taken.

Case in point: We had a very important cyberattack on our institution of Parliament, a cyberattack that was carried out in the last few days against the House of Commons and this very institution called the Senate. Our servers were attacked by Russia. They were attacked on the House side and in this chamber. How many of you are aware of that? And you know why you’re not aware of it? You don’t seem to be important as shareholders of this institution. Information Services Directorate is aware of it. The administration is aware of it. I hope Internal Economy at least is aware of it.

Let me tell you, when it happened on the House side, as is normal practice for an institution that is self-governing like parliament, immediately members of Parliament were notified — their internal department of administration, the leadership, the House leaders and immediately the members of the House of Commons. That is normal operating practice of an independent parliament that controls its own destiny and is in charge because at the end of the day Internal Economy, which is given administrative authority of this institution, is given that authority by this chamber. They’re accountable to this chamber. The administrators who run the Senate, they run it on the directive of Internal Economy, and the directives also have to be approved and signed off by this institution. That’s how a legitimate parliament operates.

So, colleagues, if many of you are wondering why this particular Item No. 31 and the budget of 2023-24 have not been approved and the official opposition has not spoken before about it, this is because these are some of the concerns we have and we think they need to be addressed.

Excuse my suspicion, but there’s no surprise at the lack of transparency and accountability when we have a government like this current government. In the midst of every and any scandal, they blame anyone but themselves. They never take responsibility. We’ve seen it in the last few days with what has happened over in the other place, which has been a major blemish and an insult to the memory of all Canadians who fought during World War II. What happened was inexcusable and unacceptable, and the Prime Minister throws the Speaker under the bus instead of protocol of the Prime Minister’s Office and the government taking full responsibility. We have a Prime Minister who has been hiding for a couple of days. At least in this chamber, we have a Government Representative who isn’t hiding. He’s here on a regular basis. He takes our questions, but unfortunately, we in the opposition are equally frustrated. We never seem to get answers. We don’t get any more answers from him and the government than we do from Internal Economy on these important issues.

For example, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP. In the midst of these cyberattacks and in the midst of foreign interference that no one is denying — and we need to take immediate action to address these — we have a government that is missing in action. We have a process with NSICOP —

Senator Housakos: Thank you, colleagues. I echo all the words that were expressed so eloquently by Senator Wallin. None of us are taking positions based on partisan politics; we’re taking positions in defence of Canadians. I have said that throughout the course of the debate on Bill C-11. I have not hidden my intentions in regard to Bill C-11, protecting freedom of speech and protecting what Canadian digital-first creators can post and view on the internet. I would rather be having a debate on the content of the bill this evening, as I’ve had throughout every process, instead of having a discussion on time allocation with a government leader who has professed to not be a government leader but a government representative.

Throughout the process, he has said that he doesn’t represent the government, that he’s just an independent — you’ve said this on a number of occasions. You have a shocked look every time I say that you have denied being a partisan government leader; that you are a representative of the government and you don’t represent the Liberal Party of Canada in this chamber. You have said that. You have said you’re not the government leader, yet now we have you calling for time allocation by using a rule that only a leader of a Liberal caucus governing party in the chamber should be using.

Now, to be clear, because I want to be specific on this particular motion, I don’t oppose it. I think it’s a wonderful tool. I said it when I was the Speaker in the past, and I said it when I was a member of a majority governing caucus — many of you are not members of a majority governing caucus, but in a very lucid way you’re all supporters of this Liberal government. You show it with your rhetoric and your speeches and, most importantly, you show it with your voting pattern. There is nothing wrong with that.

Back to the point that Senator Plett and many of us have been trying to make throughout the evening, we’re okay with the government saying they’re the government. We’re okay with Liberals saying they’re Liberals. It’s not an insult. I know these days it’s a little bit tough to acknowledge that you’re a Liberal, but at the end of the day, it’s a party that has had a long history in this country. I don’t see why we have this peekaboo process that we’re going through and this smoke and mirrors of saying, “We’re not one day but we are another day.” At the end of the day, when Canadians are going to judge you, they judge you on your vote. That’s a reality, government leader, and we can’t deny it.

There’s always frustration when we bring it up. I think the most important part of our work here is to be transparent and accountable to the Canadian public; to say where you stand on issues and vote clearly.

We’ve been transparent. Bill C-11 is a terrible bill, and when we get the time allocation — unfortunately, we’ll have a short period of time — we will again express clearly why it’s such a terrible bill. We’ve had witnesses and testimonies about what a terrible bill it is. I understand the government doesn’t want to talk about it because the government wants to make sure that bills like these that are not popular get swept under the rug and get moved along as quickly as possible. That’s when governments use time allocation.

Senator Saint-Germain, the truth of the matter is you use the word “democracy.” Democracy in this chamber is not about voting. I hate to break it to you. If you look at the last two or three elections, this chamber represented the democratic makeup in none of those elections. In 2015, there was an overwhelming majority Liberal government, and this chamber did not represent that reality for a few years. It still functioned to the best of our ability because of compromises of the opposition. In 2019, there was a minority Liberal government. In 2021, this current government won with 32% of the vote, the lowest percentage in the history of the country. So, this chamber, with 75% appointed senators from the governing party, do you think every vote we take on government legislation represents democracy? Please. It represents the will of the government.

That’s one important aspect of the Senate. They appoint a government leader to make sure the legislation moves along, as well as a deputy government leader, now modelled as a legislative — I don’t know what the title is. But we know one thing: You are ex officio. You come to committees, at clause-by-clause consideration, and you defend the government position. And you do it very well, Senator Gold. There is nothing wrong with that. Just like most of the senators whom Prime Minister Trudeau has appointed feel an obligation to support his agenda — and I believe most of you feel compelled as well because you share those political values. But democracy, Senator Saint-Germain, in this chamber, is expressed in debate, not by voting. Voting is just one small element where the government, at the end of the day, wins the day regardless of the numbers. But it’s in debate that democracy happens.

I learned that the hard way because in 2008, when I was brought here, I was sitting in a majority Conservative caucus, like many of you are right now, appointed by a prime minister, and there are many of you with the same view of the world. I was very frustrated for a few years with Senator Mercer, Senator Dawson and Senator Fraser, and I kept asking myself how come they only have 30% of the house here and they’re telling us what we have to do and what we can’t do. We’re the government. Let’s have a vote. Enough. Let’s move on. That’s not democracy.

I learned over time by speaking to guys like senator Lowell Murray and senator Serge Joyal — have you ever heard of them? They were giants of parliamentary democracy and they explained to me, “You know what, senator? I know you’re up there in the third row, and there are 60 Conservatives, and you’re fed up, but we’re articulating on behalf of stakeholders, Canadians and, more importantly, we recognize the principle in democracy that power corrupts, but absolute powers corrupts absolutely.”

It is, of course, natural for Prime Minister Trudeau to be sitting in Langevin Block, as did Prime Minister Harper back in 2014, and ask, “Why are those guys delaying my stuff over there? Giddy up. Let’s get on with it.” But you know why they were delaying things back then? It doesn’t matter if it was bills like Bill C-377, on which you referred to my ruling when I was Speaker, or stuff that we’re doing here on behalf of stakeholders. We’re talking on behalf of millions of Canadians who come and express themselves. If there’s any value in this institution, it’s when every day of the week there are a few hundred or a few thousand Canadians who think that there are people in here advocating for them.

You don’t measure that. The barometer for that kind of democracy isn’t because you have 70 votes, Senator Gold. We might have 15 votes, but we represent millions of voices. So the argument about how we need to get on with democracy — democracy comes in many forms, particularly in an unelected chamber. I remind everybody that we are on very thin ice with the Canadian public and have been for a long time because they always question the value of this institution.

Bill C-11 is one of those bills that we cannot pretend there was consensus on. We cannot pretend there was clarity. To this day, there is a lot of uncertainty, and this place has an obligation, not on a partisan basis — yes, Senator Gold, the other place is a hyper-partisan place, but it’s incumbent on us to not be hyper‑partisan. I know you feel we are because we keep insisting that the government listens to reason, but we’re not doing it because Pierre Poilievre asked us to. We did it because of the thousands of people I meet on a daily basis.

I’m going to Toronto this weekend. I’m doing round tables on Bill C-11. I invite you to come with me and meet the groups of Canadians. These are not card-carrying members of the Conservative Party. They are young Canadians concerned about expression, freedom of speech, what we’re going do with algorithms, how they’re going to be manipulating the platforms they’re using to communicate, why all of this is being done, and the cost and impact it will have, and we’ll have those debates in the few hours you’ve allocated for us this week.

Colleagues, another element here that’s important is that every time the government leader rises and speaks, he uses words to refer to the Trudeau government as “curative” and “progressive.” Maybe you don’t even realize you’re doing this, but when you were referring in your remarks earlier, you were talking about the action of the Trudeau government as curative, as doing God’s work, essentially, on Bill C-11, and we need to carry on. I invite you to go back and listen to it. In the same breath, you were talking about how the opposition was obstructive and abusive of our powers.

If that’s the starting point of a fair and open debate in an institution like this — when the government is calling us abusive, when the government is saying that we’re obstructionist and we’re partisan — those are the terminologies you’re using in your allocation when you’re speaking to us. Yet the government is curative and wonderful, and we’re obstructing democracy in its finest form. That’s when the frustration builds. This is the kind of discussion we spend more time on than we do on the actual content of the bill, government leader. This is where, of course, frustration kicks in.

I just want to reiterate that I don’t have a problem with the premise of the motion as long as it’s done in an honest and transparent way. Register as a government leader. Build your government caucus. You only need nine; I think you’ll find nine people who will admit they’re Liberal. Thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Woo, your partisanship has no bounds. At the end of the day, why weren’t you ripping your shirt in indignation when you’ve had committee chairs who are in favour of government legislation? You take exception to chairs of committees — the few chairs of committees that the opposition has in this chamber — who oppose government legislation.

I will repeat what I said yesterday in answer to a question. In this chamber, every senator is equal, regardless of their position. We have a privilege and obligation to articulate on bills, policies and motions as chairs of committees. For the information of this chamber, the significant difference between this chamber and the House is that even our own Speaker is not an arbitrator; he is a barometer of consensus. He can participate in debate and can also vote. That precedent and existence of our rights and obligations should be respected by all senators.

When I articulate my position against a bill, I do that as a senator. I can assure you, as chair of our committee, that all procedures and rules have been respected. Free debate and questioning of all witnesses have been encouraged to the point where I will stand firm that every stakeholder who wants to appear before the committee to articulate for or against will have that right. I hope that every senator on the committee will respect that privilege — yourself included, Senator Woo. That’s called democracy. If you provide any indication of where there’s been a preference by the chair in terms of stifling opposition or favour to this bill, I would love for you to point it out to this chamber.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend and a pillar of the community in Montreal who passed away this past April 4 — a great human was taken away from us way too early. Our colleague Senator Loffreda and I had the pleasure of first meeting François L’Heureux, a highly respected corporate lawyer and also a highly respected member of the federal Liberal Party more than a decade ago. As you can imagine, we often joked about the fact that we most certainly did not see eye to eye on our choice of political parties. Yet, it is critical to remember that while we as individuals held opposing views about the politics of our great nation, we were able to look beyond partisanship, as we all should when gauging a person’s character and value as a human being.

Colleagues, I have spoken in the Senate many times about autism and its impact on Canadian families. I have spoken in particular about a wonderful organization in Montreal that caters to the autism community, the Giant Steps Autism Centre and school. It is through this involvement that I got to know François L’Heureux as a lawyer and leader, but more so as a human being, family man, activist and philanthropist. François served on the board of directors of Giant Steps for over 20 years — the last decade as vice-president.

A highly regarded autism activist in Quebec with friends and colleagues from coast to coast to coast, François was very dedicated to his lovely wife, Marie Brouillet, and his two sons, Philippe and Marc, both of whom are autistic and attended Giant Steps. With his sons serving as his inspiration, my good friend served as a tireless advocate, not only for the program at Giant Steps but also for a more open and inclusive society, believing passionately in the principle of neurodiversity and the value that every person inherently has to offer.

Working closely and indeed tirelessly with the dynamic team at Giant Steps, François L’Heureux was instrumental not only in helping to guide the school over the years through his volunteerism but also in developing the new Giant Steps Autism Centre, a visionary $51.4-million project currently under construction that will be completed in approximately a year.

While this project is, of course, based upon the efforts of a large and coordinated team, the role played by François at Giant Steps was invaluable, and this is most definitely recognized by the Giant Steps community. I have had the privilege not only of calling François L’Heureux my friend but of hearing him speak passionately about Giant Steps and, more importantly, his two beautiful sons and what they meant to him.

He also spoke with deep admiration about the team at the school, what it meant to his family’s success and happiness and what the new centre would mean to so many others. While François did not have the opportunity to witness the project being completed in person, his is a legacy to be proud of. It is my sincerest hope that from heaven itself my friend is watching the project he cared about so deeply as it is completed and, more importantly, help the lives of his sons and so many other Canadians.

I would like to extend my deepest condolences to his friends and family. A great Canadian is lost — a great Quebecer and Montrealer. May he rest in peace.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, I would appreciate it if you stop always belittling questions from the opposition as partisan. We have as much right to partisan questions as you have the right to partisan answers. That is what we do in parliament. Can we cut this nonsense about what we do is more partisan and somehow what you do is God’s work here? It has to stop at some point. There has to be some respect.

You made an inference that somehow my questions are partisan in tone, and you do that constantly. Your answers are partisan in tone, Senator Gold. Excuse me, but I’m entitled to that opinion.

Furthermore, I am also entitled to my opinion that these protesters have been — every single time we have had protests in this country, you have a group of extremists that try to tag along. That is what has happened in this case. Again, for a Prime Minister to smear everybody with one brush and call these protesters, millions across Canada, Nazis, which he did, and “people who wave swastikas,” is categorically false.

I do not agree with your premise, because I took the time last week to walk up and down and speak to protesters. They went out of their way to be measured in their protest.

My next question, Senator Gold, has to do with your speech where you said the Emergencies Act only affects these particular protesters, and it does not affect all other Canadians.

Last time I checked, in the last two days to get past military-style checkpoints here in Ottawa to get to my job here, I had to provide ID. I had to provide proof of exclusion to the police. Who determines that? Who is giving that list to the police at those checkpoints of who has the right to that exclusion to enter the downtown Ottawa area?

I remind everybody the downtown Ottawa area includes Parliament Hill. Maybe it has gone absent to parliamentarians here, but this is the first time in the history of this country that the Parliament Hill of Canada has been closed to Canadian citizens; never before.

When Parliament was under attack a few years ago — under attack, where we had a violent attack — the Speakers at the time refused to shut down Parliament Hill, with all kinds of pressure from the RCMP. We said it is a fundamental right for Canadians.

So don’t say in your speech that the measures only affect the protesters. It affects every citizen. Anybody who wants to come to Parliament Hill today to speak to their parliamentarians about what is happening in Ukraine, or anywhere else in the country, they can’t. So don’t say in your speech it only affects the protesters. It affects each and every Canadian who wants to come here to protest on Parliament Hill.