Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I would like to take the adjournment of the debate in the name of Senator Martin.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, we heard more explosive evidence on “ArriveScam” last week at a House of Commons committee.

Thank God for the Conservative opposition for trying to hold this government to account. For that matter, thank God for the Conservative opposition in this new independent Senate. It seems this is the only group who is really preoccupied by “ArriveScam.” We’re the only ones asking any questions of you.

Last week, the committee heard again from the only two senior bureaucrats involved with this faulty and fraudulent scheme that the chief technology officer, Minh Doan — who oversaw the whole thing — deleted tens of thousands of emails related to “ArriveScam.” Yet, he received a promotion within your government, and the two whistle-blowers are the only two people who suffered consequences. That’s how much you care about getting to the bottom of these allegations or innuendoes, or whatever you call them. Why is that, Senator Gold? Why is your government protecting Minh Doan? Is it because he was following the instructions of the Trudeau government, and now you don’t want him to point fingers back at this government?

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, this debate is far deeper than just the motion of the time allocation. Senator Ataullahjan, you are absolutely right. We come here to debate ideas, at times controversial ideas, and that’s the role of parliament in a democracy. We are not just here to hear each other’s points of view; we have to particularly hear the point of view of the minority. That’s the role of this chamber. It is the constitutional role of this chamber. It’s the role of parliament.

It is only natural, colleagues, and it is not new to this government. Of course, the Trudeau government has taken it to new heights, but governments of all ilks and all colours look at Parliament as an obstacle, as a problem in their hurry to get to the finish line of their agenda. It doesn’t matter if they are Liberals or Conservatives. I always say that prime ministers have a use for Parliament when they are in opposition. When they become prime minister, it seems to take a back seat. That goes to the principle that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is when the House of Commons and the Senate kick in. In those moments, it is incumbent on us to hold the government to account and to reel them in.

The House of Commons has a particular role in our democracy because they are the elected chamber. They are the chamber of confidence. But even this chamber of sober second thought had a significant role to play in reeling back governments that got carried away with themselves. They played that role of sober second thought. Many were hopeful that this new independent Senate would take it a step further, but it is unfortunate that independence, to this government, seems to have been extricating the authority of senators in this chamber from Parliament.

I remind people, as much as we’ve gone through this Trudeau experiment of an independent Senate, the truth of the matter is that until we change the Constitution, Canada is still a bicameral British parliamentary Westminster-based system. We have two chambers in our Parliament. The roles are a little bit different. They are nuanced. Everybody keeps talking about the Salisbury Convention, which is great. One day, probably, when I’m back on the other side of government, I will refer to the Salisbury Convention as well. But I remind the senators who have only been here for a few years, beyond the Salisbury Convention, to read section 18 of the Constitution, which defines our role when we are summoned here.

Section 18 of the Constitution of Canada makes it clear that both the House of Commons and the Senate are modelled after the House of Commons of Westminster. Each parliamentarian in the Parliament of Canada, in both the House of Commons and the Senate, have the same rights and privileges under section 18 of the Constitution as the chamber of the House of Commons in Westminster. Ultimately, that means you have the obligation to hold the government to account, you have the obligation to be a voice for the regions, the constituents, the stakeholders of the country and the regions you represent.

The truth of the matter is that over the last eight years — and this was intentional — the once important role of senators, all of you — and we might have the debate, and some of you say you are not as Liberal as we say, and I say you are not as independent as you proclaim. One thing there is no doubt about is that all of you are very accomplished, competent people from various walks of life in various regions of the country who have big things to offer this Parliament. For the last eight years, you’ve been denied that fundamental right in section 18 of the Constitution by this government and this Prime Minister when he refuses to allow you to be the voice of your region, using your skill set and your experience in the national governing cabinet.

Senator Harder, you asked a legitimate question — why there were so few amendments in the last four Parliaments. It’s because each and every one of the senators who were appointed to this chamber, the most important role we had was not sitting in national caucus; it was not sitting here. For me, the most important role I had was sitting on ministerial advisory committees, Senator Harder. Because I sat on various committees in the Senate, I had an opportunity to engage in debate here, but the floor, when we were in government, was dominated by the Liberal opposition. That’s how it should be.

Where we as government members of the Senate had our say was at the ministerial advisory tables when legislation was being crafted. That’s when our opinions were being asked for and being voiced, even before the legislation got to the national caucus. When it got to national caucus, let me tell you, all of my colleagues here were not shy to speak out to the interests of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and often Quebec whenever the government wouldn’t listen.

There is a lot of expertise in this place that would save this current government a lot of grief if many of you had a voice at those ministerial tables when legislation is being crafted. Many of you would be able to save them from a lot of embarrassment. Many of your opinions would be worth gold for this government if once a week you were allowed to express some of those opinions at national caucus.

Once upon a time, there were government leaders in this place who sat in the cabinet, some even as ministers at various cabinet levels. Senator Gold, based on the questions we ask on a daily basis and self-admittedly, we get the impression that you are not consulted that often. They could benefit from much of your wisdom, Senator Gold.

The exception I take is the amount of contempt that I have seen from this Prime Minister and this government toward this institution and toward the senators they have appointed. They are always spending a lot of time trying to convince you how legislation has to pass quickly because it is imperative. We have tons of examples where it is not COVID aid money, it is not bills and legislation or votes of confidence, when we have to get money out the door because the government agenda has the imperative. You are right, they are the ultimate house on questions of confidence. But bills like Bill C-21, Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 — it is nice to name leaders from Indigenous communities in this place and the Prime Minister to take credit for it, but when Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 were being debated in this place, the Broadcasting Act, and I heard Indigenous groups saying that they weren’t consulted in the other place, it is important that we stand up and push back. We need to say to the government, “Wait a month; wait six months. We need to hear from other people as well.”

The truth is that Senator Klyne stood up at that time and made sure that some of those groups were heard at committee, so credit to him. There are many senators here who are open-minded and push back against the government, but this is one of those times as well. The government wants to move forward with draconian measures, like the time allocation tool. It is a legitimate government tool, but the government wants to use it when they want to claim they don’t have government members in this chamber. It is an affront to the Rules of this institution.

Again, the government will find a way to get rulings and to beat around the Rules and say, “We have the majority; it doesn’t matter.” That’s the worst thing you can say amongst yourselves or in your various groups — to say that because you have the majority, you will ram it through. The moment we curtail debate and we don’t allow the minority voices to be heard, then we fall into a great deal of traps and risks. We should not allow that to happen.

The Salisbury Convention is fantastic. We use it to say that we are not an elected body, like the House of Lords, so we should never challenge the government because they are elected. But the Salisbury Convention should also apply when the elected house overwhelmingly sends a bill to this place and says the country is in favour of it democratically, like Bill C-234. The Salisbury Convention can’t only be something you invoke when it suits the government’s interests to say, “This is in our agenda, and we want it to pass.”

The House of Commons is the ultimate expression of democracy in this Parliament, in this country. We as an unelected body ignore them and we turn our back against it and we say, “The government wants this.”

Well, Parliament trumps government. The executive branch in this country gets its mandate from the elected house. Our job is to be an added value to hold the government to account. Nothing more, nothing less, and to be a voice for regions and voices that don’t necessarily get heard in the other house.

Colleagues, we have to be consistent, and it demands a lot of courage. At the end of the day, you all get your independence from one thing: the fact that you’re summoned here by a Prime Minister of Canada and your nomination can never be revoked.

So you can have ministers calling you, you can have the Prime Minister’s Office calling you, you can have the government leader/representative saying this is important, if it doesn’t get done by Christmas, it is going to fall apart. There will be no more sun in the sky. There is going to be all sorts of cajoling and pressure put on each and every one of you by the Prime Minister that appointed you. That was the case since day one.

That’s how politics work. The Prime Minister that brought me here, and the Prime Minister that brought Percy Downe here — which was a lovely Liberal prime minister — would put pressure on him. But you know what? We are here now, and they’re no longer here. The prime minister who brought you here, he will be gone eventually. But your independence starts today. I, too, am against this.

[Translation]

Hon. Leo Housakos: Point of order.

Not only is this outrageous, I have never before seen in my time in this place someone get on their feet, move an amendment without debating on the amendment. The tradition in this place is you get up on debate, move your amendment, make your debate, take questions on your amendment and then you go into debate. Then, after that, we can try to adjourn because obviously we know what we are trying to do here.

The fact that we are skipping all of these other necessary steps — amend, debate, ask questions of the amender, go to other debates and then ask for a question? Come on, Your Honour, please.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, Canada is providing financial aid to Gaza through a series of what the Trudeau government calls “trusted partners.” These are the same partners who operated in Gaza for years when Canadian aid ended up in the pockets of Hamas operatives. They include World Vision, whose manager of Gaza operations was convicted of funnelling millions of dollars of aid money and resources to Hamas. Yet here we are again sending Canadian financial aid — taxpayers’ money — to World Vision and other organizations.

My question is this: What measures have been put into place by this government to make sure that when Canadians’ hard-earned taxpayer money is sent to provide aid in Gaza or other areas of the world, that money doesn’t end up in the pockets of terrorist organizations like Hamas?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, we know that Justin Trudeau is not worth the cost but we also see that he has a hard time with transparency and accountability.

On Tuesday, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, announced the suspension of contracts with three companies caught up in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, investigation of “ArriveScam.” First, why only the CBSA? These companies have several contracts with many Trudeau departments at all levels of government. Second, why was it only done now? Why not when the RCMP investigation began? Why not when the whistle-blowers, more than two years ago, brought this information to public light?

Last week, when Minister Blair was before this committee, he promised to get back to us in regards to Dalian contracts in his very own department. Why does it take days and weeks to get simple information from this government? Are you able to provide this chamber information in regard to whether the Department of National Defence, or DND, and Minister Blair’s suspending of its contracts with Dalian, CORDEX and GC Strategies will occur? It’s a simple yes or no. When will we cancel the contracts with these companies?

Senator Housakos: The reason Canadian dollars end up in the hands of terrorists more often than not — and have in the past — is because when our auditors audit the trusted partners, as we call them, they can only audit so far up until that partner subcontracts the work to another entity, at which point the auditors cannot carry out their work.

Everyone knows this. The government knows this. Has the government taken steps in order to put an end to this practice? When we go through these trusted partners, do we insist that they execute the work and not subcontract the work, which leads to Canadian dollars going into the hands of terrorists like Hamas?

Senator Housakos: You can avoid some RCMP investigations if your government were forthcoming with transparent information.

During testimony in the House of Commons last week, we heard that the order to go with GC Strategies was given from above. We also heard that the person who carried the water for the government and gave this order got a promotion without any public tender or any public or competitive process.

My question is very simple: Did this promotion happen because this person helped Liberal insiders line their pockets? At the end of the day, why should decent, law-abiding citizens always get caught up in Liberal scams?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, yesterday, we heard scathing testimony in the House of Commons committee looking into the ArriveCAN outsourcing scam. The former director general of the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, accused his superior of lying to the committee, in particular about who made the decision to go with GC Strategies. He testified that he had recommended Deloitte, but he was told that they were put in the penalty box. He said he was told by his superior that the decision comes from above.

The only people, Senator Gold, that the director general’s superior has above are the President of the CBSA and the minister himself. Who of the two decided to bypass not just the hundreds of IT experts in the public service but also Deloitte in favour of whichever Liberal insiders lined their pockets through GC Strategies?

I’m sure we’re all concerned, senators, aren’t we?

Who gave the order, Senator Gold? Was it the President of the CBSA, or was it the minister? Who gave the order?

Senator Housakos: What else is new? This former director general also testified that when he left the CBSA, the price tag he costed for ArriveCAN was $6.3 million. He said he was shocked at the news that it had ballooned to over $54 million — another Canadian realizing Justin Trudeau is just not worth the cost.

Was that a result of putting Deloitte in the penalty box in favour of GC Strategies? Shouldn’t the person who made the decision be held accountable, Senator Gold? Don’t we believe in accountability? Who took this decision, and why aren’t you interested in holding that person to account?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, I would like to take the adjournment of the debate in my name.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I would like to ask for leave to reset this item in my name.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, it’s getting cold outside. Even here in Ottawa, there is no denying that winter is on its way. However, yesterday, your Liberal colleagues in the House of Commons chose to further punish hard-working Canadians by voting against our motion to remove the carbon tax from all home heating in Canada. The gimmick announced by Justin Trudeau a couple of weeks ago does nothing to promote the use of cleaner forms of home heating fuel, but does leave 97% of Canadian households out in the cold. Those Canadians are struggling not only to keep the heat on this winter but also to fill up their cars to get to work, keep food on the table and keep their barns warm to produce food that the rest of us eat. Do they not matter because not enough of them voted Liberal? Is that what this is all about, Senator Gold? Is this a bribe, Senator Gold, or a threat? Which of these two is it?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, it has now been five years since the House of Commons passed the motion — and earlier this year, this chamber did the same — calling upon your Liberal government to list the IRGC — the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — as a terrorist group. At the time, Senator Omidvar stated that the crimes of the Islamic regime and the IRGC go beyond the borders of Iran. Senator Omidvar cited the support that the IRGC provides Hamas in significantly destabilizing the region, which was reflected in those barbaric acts we saw on October 7 against men, women and children.

Senator Gold, given the horrific scenes from that day and Hamas’s ability to never run out of rockets, fuel or tunnels in which they’re able to hide, what will it take for your government to list the IRGC as a terrorist group and to stop funding Hamas in their attempt to destroy the State of Israel and murder the Jewish people?

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, the only thing this tax does is punish working-class Canadians. It has created divisions in our country. Pausing the tax for one group while quadrupling it for another is completely unfair.

Senator Gold, just admit it — Justin Trudeau isn’t making decisions to benefit Canadians. He’s making decisions to try to save his sinking political ship. Also, just admit that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost for Canadian taxpayers and only Pierre Poilievre and a majority Conservative government will keep the heat on for all Canadians.

Senator Housakos: The Trudeau government’s inaction always speaks volumes. The fact is that Hamas is a designated terrorist organization in Canada — isn’t it, Senator Gold? — yet, we have Hamas operatives in this country waving terrorist flags on our streets without fear of reprisal from authorities. So even if we did list the IRGC in actual terms, it’s not like anyone in this government is prepared to do anything about it; isn’t that true, Senator Gold? If it is not true, explain to me where I’m wrong. Are you okay with having Hamas operate on campuses, recruiting —

Hon. Leo Housakos: Minister, I’m sure you’re aware of the Auditor General’s and the RCMP’s investigation into the outsourcing of contracts in regard to the “ArriveScam” app. If you’re unaware, minister, it’s high time you start reading all of your emails.

One of the two executives from Dalian Enterprises testified before a House committee. He couldn’t explain what his company does for your government. This is odd, not only because this company has zero employees, but also because your government continues to award them numerous contracts. Natural Resources Canada alone has awarded Dalian three separate contracts since March of this year for almost $10 million. The Department of National Defence also uses the services of this company. As a matter of fact, I’m told that Dalian does the majority of this outsourcing with the Department of National Defence.

Surely, minister, you can tell Canadians what it is that Dalian provides to the Department of National Defence, or is this another example of a ghost company billing taxpayers through an elaborate money laundering scheme that is benefiting government insiders?

Senator Housakos: With all the questions being asked, and with the RCMP’s investigation and the Auditor General’s investigation being launched on this issue, you’re telling me that you’ll look for the information. How many outsourcing firms run programs for the Department of National Defence? For example, who runs the medical services for the Department of National Defence? Is that done in-house, or is that contracted out? If it’s contracted out, can you please tell us to whom, minister? When you do contract out our services at National Defence, how many are awarded without tender or through selective tendering? These are questions that should be easily answered by a minister of the Crown. How many contracts have been awarded to Dalian by the Department of National Defence either without tender or through some kind of selective tender?

If you have questions about any particular contract that National Defence may be involved in, I’ll make sure that you receive that information. I didn’t bring with me today and do not have direct knowledge of the contracts that you speak of, so I don’t want to speculate. I certainly wouldn’t give you any information of which I was uncertain.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, Justin Trudeau and the Liberal-NDP coalition finally flip-flopped on their cornerstone public policy: the carbon tax. Of course, the Prime Minister didn’t flip-flop on the carbon tax because he finally understood what future prime minister Pierre Poilievre has been talking about for years, which is that a carbon tax causes inflation, raises the cost of living and pummels poor, working-class and middle‑class Canadians — no, not at all. He flip-flopped because he saw plummeting polling numbers for the Liberal Party of Canada and desperate Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada.

The question is this: Why just for Atlantic Canada?

Second, if Justin Trudeau has finally understood that he and his carbon tax are just not worth the cost, why isn’t he now planning to axe the tax from coast to coast to coast in order to give relief to all segments of the economy and all sectors of the population?