Senator Plett: You know, leader, you’re upset when we, somewhat in frustration, ask you questions, and you don’t even attempt to touch the question. There’s no argument about the validity of our passports. I didn’t talk about that; I didn’t mention that. I asked about images, leader, and you didn’t even touch that. And then we’re being schooled on not being personal.

Senator Housakos: Why fix it if it’s not broken?

Senator Plett: This passport fiasco, leader, demonstrates one thing clearly: This Prime Minister doesn’t respect our history or understand the everyday lives and priorities of Canadians. How much time, energy and money was wasted changing these passports? Please, leader, don’t tell me how important our passports are. We understand that.

Senator Plett: — in his ruling. So today —

Senator Plett: Again, Your Honour, I will be raising another point of order in a minute, but right now we are dealing with a point of order that Senator Carignan raised. That is what he did.

Senator Plett: I will be brief. Again, Your Honour, I really don’t think it is up to any one senator here to all of a sudden determine that, “This is acceptable to me, so you can call the government leader this, and this is not acceptable to me.” Very clearly, there was an insinuation made that it was a lack of respect for us to call the government leader the government leader or possibly the Liberal leader. Again, the government is a Liberal government.

As our Speaker said a week ago when he ruled on a point of order, Senator Gold is, in fact, a member of the government and the leader of the government, which is a Liberal government. I will leave it at that, and when this is done, Your Honour, I have another point of order.

Senator Plett: What is so difficult in answering my question? Adding security features to the passport could have been done without erasing images from Canadian history. It’s mind-boggling that the Trudeau government sees all the serious issues facing Canada and thinks it’s a good idea to put its time and energy into taking Vimy Ridge, Terry Fox, the War Memorial and the Famous Five off the passport.

Senator Plett: What is so difficult in answering my question? Adding security features to the passport could have been done without erasing images from Canadian history. It’s mind-boggling that the Trudeau government sees all the serious issues facing Canada and thinks it’s a good idea to put its time and energy into taking Vimy Ridge, Terry Fox, the War Memorial and the Famous Five off the passport.

Senator Martin: Shame.

Senator Plett: Well, the fact of the matter is — I think if we check Hansard, we’ll see — that Senator Carignan rose on a point of order. You may not have understood that, Your Honour, but Senator Carignan clearly stood on a point of order and raised a point of order.

Senator Plett: What is so difficult in answering my question? Adding security features to the passport could have been done without erasing images from Canadian history. It’s mind‑boggling that the Trudeau government sees all the serious issues facing Canada and thinks it’s a good idea to put its time and energy into taking Vimy Ridge, Terry Fox, the War Memorial and the Famous Five off the passport.

Senator Martin: Shame.

Senator Plett: Food banks across Canada, leader, are reporting unprecedented demand. One in five Canadians say they’re skipping meals due to the high cost of food. A quarter of Canadians say there’s no scenario in which they can afford a summer vacation unless the Prime Minister takes them on one of his.

He, of course, has no answers to the cost-of-living crisis. At a town hall in April, he advised taking on more credit card debt to pay for school or home renovations.

Senator Martin: Out of touch.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I also rise to pay tribute to our colleague and friend the Honourable George Furey as we begin saying goodbye to Canada’s forty-fifth Speaker of the Senate.

Your Honour, as I reflected on your tenure in the Senate, I remembered many of your interventions when we both served on the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. That’s when our friendship began. We were faced with difficult times then — times that brought on increased transparency. Yet, things back then were simple. You were a good Liberal — if there is such a thing — and I a proud Conservative. But at the end of the day, we both knew that partisanship had a respectful role in this institution. Those were the good old days.

A lot has changed since then, as Prime Minister Trudeau sent the Senate into uncharted waters — waters that you as Speaker have had to navigate. You stepped up to the helm as a storm was brewing on the horizon. There were turbulent times, which called for you to make difficult rulings. Some we agreed with, and others we did not. But my respect and admiration for your efforts to be a fair and impartial Speaker prevailed. They never wavered.

Your Honour, thank you for the role you have played in ensuring this chamber runs smoothly. You have demonstrated incredible patience. I will always cherish your professionalism and allegiance to this institution.

Over the years, you took on the role of a devoted ambassador for Canada in your travels abroad. When meeting with various leaders of other countries, you always allowed and welcomed everyone present to take part in the discussions and meetings. You recognized the role of the opposition and you let everyone express their views.

Your Honour, I wish to close with this genuine thought: It has been a pleasure to know you over the years. I recognize that this sentence is sometimes used lightly, but the meaning is sincere. Both Betty and I hold great memories of our times spent with you and Karen. We have truly enjoyed your friendship.

As of later today, Your Honour, I will once again be calling you George. Happy retirement! I wish you and Karen the very best, and may you catch up on spending time with your loved ones, especially your grandchildren. I will take you up on that game of golf that you have promised me.

Thank you, Your Honour.

[Translation]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Sarah Fischer, Director of Communications for the Conservative Party of Canada, posted on Twitter:

It’s just a passport

It’s just a symbol

They’re only words

Only beliefs held by the few

Only traditions that no longer matter

It’s just history

Milan Kundera wrote:

The first step in liquidating a people . . . is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was.

The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.

Leader, the mayor of Terry Fox’s hometown of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, said yesterday:

Whoever made the decision to remove Terry Fox from Canadian passports needs to give their head a shake. Our country needs more Terry Fox, not less.

I certainly agree with those words. I also agree, leader, with the Royal Canadian Legion statement condemning the removal of an image of the Vimy Memorial from our passports. They said it was, “. . . to put it bluntly, a poor decision,” leader.

This is the result of a government that has a lack of respect for Canadians and Canada’s history, and the heroes and heroines of the past who have made our country great. They have no moral compass.

Leader, why did the Trudeau government make it a priority to erase images of our country from our passports?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I find it strange, Your Honour, that you would make a ruling on something without even allowing anybody else to get up and say anything. The fact of the matter is the Speaker last week made a ruling calling the government leader, the Liberal leader, calling him the Leader of the Government —

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I know that you, others and all of us would like to go next door to an unveiling. However, we did not create the situation here today, others did. We are standing on points of order that we rightfully have, and you, Your Honour, are being put in a very difficult position here, as I’m not sure what your title will be next week. But you are certainly, at this point, in the chair and are going to need to take these matters under advisement.

During Question Period today, two senators made things clear in their questions. One of them was that, “You have given me a sufficient answer, but I have a second question.” The other one made it clear in his preamble, “I have two questions.” I think the Rules of the Senate, again, are that you have a question and a supplementary question. The supplementary question needs to at least refer to the initial question.

Your Honour, I’m hoping that you’re going to agree with me on this point, and in the future you’re going to hopefully police that. When a person asks a second question, it is a supplemental question, not a brand new question, which happened in two cases today where both of the people said at the outset that this is a second question and it should have been caught at that time.