Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Thank you, Government Representative.

This question is on the same theme of solutions to complex issues, and it relates to the watermark-style pictures in the new passport. Let me approach it quite differently than was earlier discussed. I do believe those symbols are important. As you know, I’ve raised the issue of ensuring that Parliament Hill and Wellington Street are reformed in a way that will highlight that icon for all Canadians.

I want to ask the government to take a step back from this issue, and consult with Canadians once again in order to develop a new proposal by the fall. Given that Canadians will be applying for passports online, I wonder if we can provide applicants with a choice of the art they would like for their passports. Passports are not a document to be weaponized. Can we find an amicable solution as soon as possible?

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: I have a two-part question for the Government Representative in the Senate. Out of respect for this institution, I will use your proper title: Government Representative.

My question relates to two current controversies, and, rather than complaining or accusing, I will propose that my theme is solutions to complex issues.

On the matter of foreign interference and parliamentarians, while I compliment the government on the new policy announced this week that requires the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, or CSIS, to brief up all intelligence regarding parliamentarians, can you confirm that CSIS will brief individual parliamentarians directly when there are any intelligence issues concerning those individuals going forward, as well as that CSIS will also brief them on intelligence received in recent years?

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: As I am the person who used those words, I think there is some lack of clarity about whether Senator Gold should be referred to as the Government Representative or the government leader. I would suggest that those two terms are both acceptable, but it’s when we ascribe partisanship to him that it is perhaps quite inaccurate. I think he’s made that point clearly.

Whether it is leader or representative, the word “government” stays. Both terms are used because, as I understand, he was appointed leader to be styled as representative. To me, if people want to use one word or another, that’s fine, but to use words beyond those two are inaccurate. We shouldn’t come up with all sorts of titles for each other. That is my main point.