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: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is very important to highlight that there’s a pattern on the part of this government and this Prime Minister of not answering questions transparently and accountably. NSICOP is one of those things when it comes to foreign interference, Senator Woo.

Senator Housakos: Madam Speaker, as you recognize, at the end of the day, in the middle of a debate, there has to be a legitimate point of order. Now he jumps up in order to curtail debate. There has been nothing in his point of order that calls into question the procedure of someone speaking on the item at hand during a debate. The item at hand concerns the budget and the operating methodology of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, or CIBA.

I’m calling into question the accountability and transparency of the majority side of this chamber and of CIBA itself. I have someone who doesn’t have a procedural issue with this point of order — he has a problem with the content of the debate — so I think I have a legitimate right for Your Honour to recognize that I may continue my debate on this particular item.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you to Senator Carignan for raising this point of order.

Senator Cardozo, there is no ambiguity. The only ambiguity and confusion there have been in the last eight years is that some in this chamber have allowed themselves to give into the political pressure of the agenda of a Prime Minister who has imposed his vision, political and partisan view on this institution. No ambiguity. It’s in the law. It’s in the rule and the law as stated by Senator Carignan.

More importantly, the current government leader — who styles himself as a representative — if you read his mandate letter, Senator Cardozo, which was issued by the Prime Minister of Canada, he refers to him as the government leader.

After that, we’re a very flexible opposition and we allow people to carry on with their charade, which is fine. If they want to style themselves as representatives, there’s not much representation going on in this place between the government leader and this institution as we’ve seen in Question Period and other exchanges. If he wants to style himself as that, that’s one thing.

But getting up during Question Period and questioning our authority and our right to call him and refer to him as government leader as somehow impugning his reputation, that is a bit much because that is the law. We’re lawmakers.

I will ask people in this chamber to go back to the speech of the Speaker where he mentioned that it’s important that we as an institution are transparent and honest.

Hon. Leo Housakos: In his ruling.

Senator Housakos: If I may finish my point of order, I think we’ve earned that right on this side of the chamber. I am trying to finish the case that number one, it is in the Rules, in the law, that he is the government leader. We insist that there is at least a respect and an appreciation for the Rules and the law in this institution.

We didn’t get a written copy of the Speaker’s ruling unfortunately because we remember it was done in haste when he ruled on the government having the right to use closure. In that ruling, he made it clear that Senator Gold was the leader of the government. That was the ruling as we understood it. If anybody wants to challenge it, they can go ahead on a point of order.

Senator Housakos: If I may finish my point of order, I think we’ve earned that right on this side of the chamber. I am trying to finish the case that number one, it is in the Rules, in the law, that he is the government leader. We insist that there is at least a respect and an appreciation for the Rules and the law in this institution.

Senator Housakos: If I may finish my point of order, I think we’ve earned that right on this side of the chamber. I am trying to finish the case that number one, it is in the Rules, in the law, that he is the government leader. We insist that there is at least a respect and an appreciation for the Rules and the law in this institution.

We didn’t get a written copy of the Speaker’s ruling unfortunately because we remember it was done in haste when he ruled on the government having the right to use closure. In that ruling, he made it clear that Senator Gold was the leader of the government. That was the ruling as we understood it. If anybody wants to challenge it, they can go ahead on a point of order.

Hon. Leo Housakos: I rise on a point of order calling upon rule 2-9(1) and rule 2-9(2) in Chapter Two of the Rules of the Senate. My point of order, Your Honour, deals with a Senate intervention that has, in my opinion, created a dispute between two senators. During the course of debate in this chamber, we have a senator who, in my opinion, was maligned and injured. In particular, that is covered under rule 2-9(2).

Your Honour, throughout the years that I’ve been in this chamber — now going on my fifteenth year — I have never seen this degree of partisanship and vicious personal attacks, which I’ve seen over the last little while. This is a place of Parliament. We’ve had some very acrimonious debates throughout the years. I sat in that chair as Speaker when many of those acrimonious debates took place between the government on one side and the opposition on the other. Let me tell you, there weren’t any doves in the Liberal opposition at the time. There were some fierce debaters — people like Senator Mercer, Senator Fraser and Senator Mitchell. Senator Cordy, at the time, was pretty good at doing her job as the official opposition.

We would sit late into the month of June, and we would have the opposition doing what they thought they needed to do on behalf of Canadians. We had the majority in this chamber, at the time, doing what we thought we had a mandate to do by the elected people. Yet, at no point in time did we impugn motive. At no point in time did we accuse leaders of the official opposition of lying or misleading. That is what happened this evening, Your Honour.

We had a member of this chamber on their feet, whom the Speaker had recognized — an honourable member in this place — and in the heat of partisan political debate, we know there is heckling, and sometimes we get carried away, but I think it is wholly unacceptable to have a member of this chamber speak disparagingly of another member, particularly calling into question their integrity and stating that the point of order that this particular individual was articulating at the time was a lie.

I know you’ve recently undertaken deep reflection regarding what is parliamentary language and what isn’t, Your Honour. I expect that we will have a ruling on that at the same speed that we had a ruling on how we use time allocation.

There has also been a tradition — and correct me if I am wrong, Your Honour — that when a colleague points disparagingly at another during debate, the Speaker would call them to order. That was the practice when I arrived here. That was the practice I exercised when I was the Speaker. I know, Your Honour, that you do grant us a great deal of latitude in debate and in the rules of this chamber, but I think it’s incumbent, colleagues, on all of our parts here, that we can disagree on issues. We’re not on the same side of the political spectrum, despite the fact that there is an overwhelming number here who are independent. The truth of the matter is we are on different sides of all the debates. That’s our job. That’s what we come here to do. We are here to do that vigorously.

I am one who loves vigorous debate. I love engaging in vigorous debate, but I also encourage vigorous debate back and a clash of ideas. If I cross that line, I expect the Speaker to call me to order, and I will be the first to apologize if I ever impugn the motive of any individual in this place, or if I ever show behaviour that is unbecoming of a senator.

I rise with hesitation, Your Honour. Going forward, if we don’t calm the temperatures down and start respecting decorum and the basic rules of this institution, debate will continue to really slide down the slippery slope.

It’s a point of order that’s important, and I leave it with you, Your Honour, to do what you see fit with it.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Your Honour. Now that we’ve had the very liberal interpretation of the Rules, here come the facts.

Honourable colleagues, now, all of a sudden, Senator Gold has embraced his position of government leader. For seven years, he and his predecessors were running away from that wonderful, powerful position — which is, of course, a legitimate one in the Westminster parliamentary system and legitimate in our own chamber, but he has been running away from it for a variety of reasons.

The truth of the matter is that this chamber has become a majority chamber appointed by the governing party. The reason you have not taken steps over the last eight years to make changes to how time allocation is applied, Senator Gold, is very simple: It is because you have had a very cooperative opposition throughout this time.

Senator Housakos: You can laugh and find it funny, but one day you will find yourselves in opposition and you’ll realize there is a job to be done. Let me tell you, we passed the vast majority of government legislation quickly — especially through 2016-17, when we didn’t have a majority of Trudeau-appointed Liberals sitting in this chamber. This happened because there was a cooperative opposition.

You can laugh all you want. Throughout that process, Senator Plett always negotiated with Senator Gold and his predecessor, Senator Harder. However, there comes a point in time when the opposition draws a line in the sand. You’re absolutely right; it’s well within the right of government to use time allocation. I’ll repeat that it is a legitimate tool of the Westminster parliamentary system.

Senator Gold, I thank you for highlighting my wonderful ruling back in 2015. You’re absolutely right; I said in the ruling what I say today, consistently, that it’s a legitimate tool of the government — except at that particular point in time we had an honest, transparent and accountable government that named the government leader in this chamber, the deputy government leader and a government whip.

More important to the Rules, Senator Gold, this chamber had a governing Conservative caucus. All of us who understand Westminster parliamentary rules around the world know that it is our political parties that form governments and elect our prime ministers. By the way, our legitimacy comes from those prime ministers who appoint us to the Senate through the process of political parties.

Thank you for that ruling, but read it in context and in its entirety.

Second, in your liberal interpretation of the Rules — vis-à-vis the negotiations that Senator Plett referred to in terms of trying to find agreement between government and the opposition — the word “government” is nowhere in those Rules that were drafted in 1991. The Rules were prescriptive and clear: A political party is required to trigger time allocation. This is not something we’re making up, Senator Gold.

Unless something has changed in the past hour that I’m not aware of — I did check before I came in here — on the Senate website, Senator Gold, you remain identified as “unaffiliated.” I’m pretty confident that anyone watching the televised proceedings today will also see a banner under Senator Gold’s name that says “unaffiliated.” It doesn’t say “government leader.” Yes, you went to deep lengths and, yes, we moved points of order that questioned the ill-thought-out approach of the government playing peekaboo with this chamber, with modelling the government leader as a representative.

You created that context where you have become nothing more than someone who receives information and doesn’t share any with this chamber. I think the words you used are some “passive taker of information.” We didn’t force that upon you. It’s the Prime Minister who forced it upon you and this chamber in the 2015 election when he played partisan politics with this institution. And that’s a reality.

Some have acquiesced to that political agenda. We’ve played along because we understand we lost three successive elections, and it was incumbent on the opposition to make this place work, so we gave a little bit. But there are certain limits.

We’ve all heard Senator Gold and his predecessor Senator Harder say it in media interviews and in this very chamber that they are not affiliated with any political party. Just one example comes from Senator Gold at exactly 2:45 p.m. on June 15, 2021, when being questioned about a former Green Party member, who had espoused some pretty anti-Semitic views, crossing the floor and being welcomed to the Liberal government caucus. Senator Gold, you responded by saying:

At the risk of being pedantic, I represent the government in the Senate. I’m not a member of the Liberal Party.

As for the decision of the party to accept that member and under what circumstances, those questions should properly be directed to the Liberal Party.

Do you remember that? Of course, it isn’t just that she wasn’t welcomed into the Liberal Party, as I said, but she became a Liberal caucus member, a member of the government. But you took no accountability for that. Regardless, there you have it in his own words, colleagues.

Senator Gold in his role as government leader or Government Representative, depending on the day, is not affiliated with the Liberal Party or other political party recognized by Elections Canada. I’m not making this up. And that is the base requirement — the most fundamental requirement — for Senator Gold to be able to play a role in advocating time allocation. It’s clear in the Rules. It’s not ambiguous, not open to Liberal interpretations, not open to Conservative interpretations, just independent factual interpretations.

If that changes here today, or if there ever is a ruling that changes that, I fully expect that a communiqué will immediately go to the Senate Communications Directorate and Senate broadcasting to have Senator Gold, Senator Gagné, Senator LaBoucane-Benson and all identified properly on the website and the televised proceedings of this institution being accountable and transparent to the public that you represent the government.

Even after that, it doesn’t even give you the right to time allocation. You have to have the biggest Liberal caucus, along with your $2 million budget on behalf of the government, to be able to allocate time, Senator Gold, and with agreement. This is the rule — if you have agreement. You don’t have the right to have an agreement because you are not the government leader in the chamber to negotiate. But if you have agreement, rule 7-1(1), Your Honour, states:

At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that —

— and I highlight —

— the representatives of the recognized parties have agreed to allocate a specified number of days or hours . . .

And, without agreement, rule 7-2(1) states:

At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of the recognized parties have failed to agree to allocate time to conclude an adjourned debate on either . . .

I’m not a lawyer, but that’s pretty clear.

In accordance with the rule governing time allocation, the only role for the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government under our current structure is to inform the chamber of the decision of the current Leader of the Opposition as to whether he wishes to impose any time allocation.

The rule clearly states, whether with agreement or without agreement, that the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of recognized parties have agreed or have failed to agree to allocate time. It does not state that the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government is part of making that determination. But the recognized political parties have to do that.

If that were the intent of the rule, it would read, “having come to an agreement with,” or “failing to come to an agreement with.”

None of that wording is there. The wording of the rule purposely distinguishes between the representatives of the government and the representatives of recognized parties. Yet it does not say the agreement or lack thereof must be between government and recognized parties. It clearly leaves the government on the proverbial sideline of that decision, making clear the current wording of the rule — only the representatives of recognized parties can come to an agreement on time allocation. That’s the rule.

For clarity’s sake, Your Honour, we have the definition of “recognized party” in Appendix I, in case anyone has any ambiguity:

A recognized party in the Senate is composed of at least nine senators who are members of the same political party, which is registered under the Canada Elections Act, or has been registered under the Act within the past 15 years. . . .

That’s pretty clear, right? We respect, at least, Elections Canada’s laws. At least most of us do.

Continuing with Appendix I:

A recognized parliamentary group in the Senate is one to which at least nine senators belong and which is formed for parliamentary purposes. A senator may belong to either one recognized party or one recognized parliamentary group. Each recognized party or recognized group has a leader or facilitator in the Senate.

You will notice that the definition even makes the distinction — and this is important — between recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups.

Colleagues, again, we did that in cooperation in order to accommodate a very political agenda that has been imposed on this parliamentary institution.

That’s important because, again, the rule governing time allocation mentions only representatives of the recognized parties — i.e. those affiliated with a political party as recognized by the Canada Elections Act.

Last I checked, the ISG — Independent Senators Group — the CSG — Canadian Senators Group — and PSG — the Progressive Senate Group — are not recognized by Elections Canada. You can apply if you would like to, but you’re not. Only government can allocate time in our Westminster model, and governments are formed by political parties elected in the House of Commons. And, of course, by extension, the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, gives us our legitimacy by appointing us in this chamber. Political parties — nowhere in the rule are representatives of parliamentary groups mentioned.

As I said, we’ve had seven or eight years. We’ve opened the Parliament of Canada Act. There didn’t seem to be any urgency at the time to change that. We’ve had eight years to change the way time allocation has been operating in this chamber. There is no ambiguity around this.

And before anyone jumps to their feet to say this must have been an oversight, a lot of time, effort and resources have gone into changing the Rules of the Senate over the years. These particular rules did not slip our attention. It was not by accident that representatives of recognized parties were singled out when it comes to making an agreement on time allocation. If you don’t wish to take my word for it, how do you explain that we did distinguish and include the leaders of recognized parliamentary groups as it pertains to speaking times during debate on motion of time allocation? So we had the debate.

Rule 7-3(1)(f), Your Honour, states that during debate on the motion without agreement:

(i) the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition may each speak for up to 30 minutes, and

(ii) the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group may speak for up to 15 minutes . . .

So there we referred to leaders of recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups. In other words, they are not interchangeable in this place. That was decided a few years ago with everyone’s participation.

Therefore, when the rule states that the agreement, or lack thereof, must come from the leaders of the recognized parties in our current composition, that leaves only the representative of the Conservative caucus. That was not our choice. That was imposed on this place by the current Prime Minister. He might not like it today. The Government Representative today might like to be the government leader. You might even like to have a Liberal caucus today of 60 members to go with the $2 million budget, but you don’t have it.

It does not include the Government Representative by virtue of your own insistence. You did this. Your government did this; we didn’t.

If we’re still not satisfied with the intent of the wording of this rule and whether there is some ambiguity there for the rule to be interpreted, I’ll refer you to the then-government leader’s testimony at the now-defunct Modernization Committee on May 23, 2018. Senator Harder was addressing, amongst other things, possible ways to make proceedings in the chamber more efficient through the establishment of a business management committee. Obviously, that was not the direction that the Senate went, but it was clear that the notion of time allocation was on our minds. Again, it’s not like this one slipped by without consideration.

Senator Harder did testify at that time whatever approach we took must safeguard “. . . every senator’s individual right to debate, scrutinize, propose amendments and oppose.“

That would certainly explain the wording of the rule on time allocation in protecting the opposition’s role in determining it, especially when you consider that Senator Harder went on to say that the rule should also safeguard “. . . the government’s ability to have a say in the process of debate . . .” as it prepares to identify its own priorities. The duration of the bells, the deferral of votes as well as allowing members of the government leadership to sit as ex officio on committees — increasingly, he said nothing about the Government Representative playing a role in time allocation.

All of that is to further establish that the rule governing time allocation that singles out the representatives of recognized parties as the sole participants in any agreement was and is deliberate.

I have one final note, and it also comes from Senator Harder’s testimony at the Modernization Committee. Senator Harder spoke about the changes to the Parliament of Canada Act to reflect the new rules the Senate was establishing for itself, rightfully pointing out that any such changes would require the consent of both chambers of Parliament. Senator Harder said:

Because the Senate is a self-governing body, it is not for the government to unilaterally come forward with its own view of amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act that could affect the inner workings of the Senate.

Senator Harder stated that he agreed with our eminent former colleague Serge Joyal that any changes should come from the Senate itself and sent to the House to include in any legislation.

Senator Harder then cited the Leader of the Government in the House, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, from his own committee testimony on February 24, 2016, Your Honour. Minister LeBlanc stated:

I would be amenable to suggestions that Senate colleagues would have or whatever process you, Madam Chair, or your colleagues think is appropriate. . . .

You’ll appreciate that it’s not up to somebody who is serving in the House of Commons to come and suggest to senators how you may want to change or adjust your own Rules. . . . I would be happy to work collectively or collegially to ensure that if the government brings in a bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, we at the same time fix, amend, modernize or correct whatever you or your colleagues think might be important . . . .

Colleagues, Your Honour, our rule on time allocation is clear. It was put in place with the agreement of the Senate and in accordance with the reality of there no longer being a government caucus or a government leader who identifies as being affiliated with the governing party. This isn’t a holdover rule that hadn’t had time to change. We’ve made changes to reflect that it is no longer a chamber of political caucuses only.

If the government is allowed now to invoke time allocation, we are allowing the government to set the rules in this chamber with no barriers. I don’t just think it’s out of order; I would go so far as to say it is a breach of our privilege and a breach of the principles in this institution, which is we respect the rules of Parliament.

Even if you and everyone else in this chamber believes the government leader should be allowed to invoke time allocation regardless of their affiliation or lack thereof, that is a rule change that should not be decided in this manner. There are proper procedures. We can send this to the Rules Committee to be properly studied and allow that committee to report back to the chamber and follow the rules of Parliament.

In doing this now, the government is placing the Speaker as well, as my honourable colleague Senator Plett said, in a very untenable position. It is not his role to write or to overturn the Rules, Senator Gold, especially at the whim of someone from the other chamber — the Prime Minister — who is enforcing rule changes in this institution.

At the end of the day, Senator Gold, the Prime Minister has appointed a majority of senators in this chamber whose rhetoric fits the government’s. They articulate the government positions, they vote overwhelmingly for the government positions. We fund right now the leadership of the government in this chamber even though it has denied for seven and a half years that they are the government until, of course, today you have embraced government, so I don’t understand why this peekaboo charade continues to go on in this institution.

If it does — if there is a genuine willingness for independence — let’s show it and make sure that we don’t trample over the basic written Rules because this is a place of lawmaking, Your Honour. And if we as a place of lawmakers don’t respect our own Rules, how in the world are we going to have any legitimacy as an institution in the eyes of Canadians?

Thank you, Your Honour.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Your Honour. My interpretation of the rules you sent out — and I will respect them — was that if we had social distancing space around us that we could take the mask off if we had a cumbersome time breathing. It is a little bit cumbersome.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Your Honour.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, for the second reading of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.