The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of John Rafferty, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind; our former colleague the Honourable Asha Seth and her spouse, Arun Seth; and Deepak Anand, Member of Provincial Parliament, and his spouse, Aruna Anand. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Dagenais.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Mr. Justice J. Patrick Moore and the Honourable Madam Justice Tamarin Dunnet, both from the Superior Court of Justice – Ontario. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Oh.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Baroness Margaret de Vos van Steenwijk and Lysbeth van Valkenburg-Lely. Also in the gallery is Nahla Valji, Global Coordinator of the Spotlight Initiative in the Executive Office of the United Nations Secretary-General. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Jaffer.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Pierre Beauregard, Amelia Valdez, Samuel Beauregard and Azfar Adib. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Christie Newton and Dr. Brady Bouchard. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Osler.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Downe after Question Period on March 30, as well as a subsequent point of order raised by Senator Housakos on April 25.

In terms of the point of order of March 30, the remarks made during Question Period, which gave rise to the concerns, alleged that a member of the other place, holding a key position in public office, had misled Canadians. Then a very strong term, best avoided in parliamentary business, was used. Following a request from a senator, several other senators offered input on this matter on April 19.

Rule 6-13(1) deals with the language used in debate. It states that “[a]ll personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.” As indicated at page 85 of Senate Procedure in Practice:

There is no definitive list of words or expressions that are deemed unparliamentary. Determination of what constitutes unparliamentary language is left primarily to the judgment of the Speaker and the sense of the Senate. The circumstances and tone of the debate in question play important roles in this determination.

This is, of course, not the first time such issues have been raised. I note, in particular, a similar point of order raised on December 3, 2020, concerning remarks made during debate on a motion to authorize a committee to study a government contract.

I once again urge honourable senators to be mindful of the need for caution when participating in proceedings. In particular, parliamentary practice holds that “[d]isrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House [of Commons] and the Senate individually are not permitted.” This is at page 620 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which then goes on to emphasize that “Members of the House and the Senate are also protected by this rule.” In speaking of our colleagues, whether in the Senate or the other place, we should therefore be guided by the need to show respect and to avoid intemperate personalized attacks, including impugning motives.

Senator Housakos’ related point of order of April 25, dealt with remarks and actions that took place between senators following an exchange in the Senate. He argued that a particular senator had been “maligned and injured” and made reference to rule 2-9(2), which states that “[s]enators who consider themselves to have been offended or injured in the Senate Chamber … may appeal to the Senate for redress.” On the other hand, some colleagues claimed that the language and actions at issue were not excessive and not without precedent in the Senate.

Honourable senators, with the privilege of sitting in this house comes responsibility. We all work together for the good of our country. We can certainly disagree, and can even disagree strongly. Indeed, the exchange of conflicting ideas is vital to the health of our parliamentary system. We should, however, always act with civility and respect towards our fellow parliamentarians, and all persons we deal with or mention. All of us are responsible for ensuring the proper functioning of this institution, and we must avoid undermining it or each other.

Language and actions are powerful. Parliament should provide an example of productive and respectful debate, of a type that we do not always see elsewhere in society. We have a role to be leaders and must choose our words wisely. More practically, I am concerned about how such issues could harm the culture of the Senate and risk having deleterious effects on our work.

In light of all this, I am sure that honourable senators will understand the concerns that have been raised. Senators could have shown their strong views in ways that were less inflammatory. I strongly urge moderation and restraint by senators so that we can best fulfil our work on behalf of all Canadians. Collaboration from all colleagues is essential; the Senate must remain a forum for respectful debate while also retaining its characteristic as a body where each of us assumes responsibility for maintaining order and decorum.

In these specific cases, I must find that the events of which Senators Downe and Housakos complained did go beyond the limits of proper parliamentary behaviour. I ask colleagues to be mindful of these factors in the future. Specific actions relating to these cases would, however, require a decision from the Senate, in keeping with our collective responsibility for how our Senate functions.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6).