Hon. Pamela Wallin: I do want to say a few words about closure, or time allocation in this case, in part because we gathered as a group, and we have a lot of new members in our group and in the Senate. I think if we even set the legislation aside for a moment, it is important that we understand the principles on which this place operates.

I believe that time allocation should be deployed with caution and restraint, and only when all other options have been exhausted; so too should challenges to the Speaker of this chamber when he offers his considered opinions and rules.

We in this place are here tonight because some of us feel very strongly about a particular piece of legislation. It is, in my mind, not a partisan issue. Bill C-11 touches us in a very personal and particular way. I’ve spent most of my adult life in the business of journalism and media. I have strongly held views. They are not partisan views. You may believe, as the government claims, that this is simply an update of the Broadcasting Act. For me and others, it is a threat to free expression. That does not make me a demagogue. I worked in the business; I understand this bill.

Free expression is not just a slogan. It’s not just free speech on a banner. Free expression is very much a two-way street: the right to speak freely, but the right to hear a wide range of views, to inform ourselves and to share our ideas that may differ. That is at the core of a democracy.

So whether it is the bill or the use of time allocation, the issue is pretty fundamental to how this place operates. What we are seeing is a clash of two fundamental principles of our parliamentary tradition. Governments are, indeed, elected and should expect to pass their legislation in a reasonable amount of time. But when governments run roughshod, they can expect resistance. That is what happened in the other place with the committee process.

Time allocation is a bit of an offshoot of closure, I guess. It is a tool that the government has every right to use, but so too does the opposition have a right to use the tools available to them to delay votes and to have hour-long bells before we vote, as annoying and as frustrating as that may be. It comes back to the age-old debate about the role of the Senate. It is our job to offer — or even impose from time to time — sober second thought, whether the government likes it or not. We are not obliged to defer to the other place. That is a choice we will make in this chamber.

I must say that what has particularly struck me in this debate is about the behaviour of the House of Commons committees. The process was nothing short of appalling. Debates were summarily shut down and motions were passed in secret. Debate was suspended and witnesses were sent home. It makes the obligation for us in this chamber all the more powerful and important. To give voice to those who were denied a voice — that is our job. That is what the very definition of the Senate is. It is very core to our role as parliamentarians. We are not a secondary house. We’re not something that is just an add-on to the process that goes on in the other place. We have a role as parliamentarians.

For many of us, this bill is a problem. Some of us find it truly offensive. But in the end, we also realize that the government will have its way. It will be a little messy. It is certainly not efficient, but democracy is messy. We must consider the consequences of our actions on both sides of the two that are debating here. If the government wants its bills passed, it should engage in discussion and negotiation. I don’t like the fact that tomorrow our committees will probably be cancelled so that we will carry on debate. If you want your legislation passed, you should create the circumstances where our committees can sit. The opposition needs to consider the implications of that as well.

A mind greater than mine once said, “The first act of all persuasion is clarity of purpose.”

This will not be our last controversial debate over legislation, but we owe all of those whom we represent that clarity of purpose, to have an honest debate. But more importantly, to respect the fundamentally different views that Canadians and senators can hold about this bill or about the right of government to limit debate because if you cannot offer people a vision of what they should do, you won’t be able to persuade them about the things they shouldn’t do. That is a challenge to our leaders in this place, and it’s a challenge to each and every one of us. Thank you.