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, Senator Downe, for your intervention. When Conservatives get to their feet in this chamber, it is not because of political expediency, and the language we use is not to appeal to our base or moderate voters. Our objective is to speak on behalf of Canadians on issues and express our feelings on the issues of the day, and that’s what we have done.

Your Honour, I spent some time this morning — not a considerable amount of time because I was informed shortly before that we would have this opportunity — and looked back at previous rulings. This chamber operates on the premise of procedural rules, our existing Rules that are in writing, and, of course, in large part, based on precedent. I tried to look up cases in the history of this august chamber when parliamentary language was called into question. I have to say that there haven’t been that many instances. There have been rulings by Speaker Molgat, Speaker Kinsella and Speaker Furey.

I will go back to March 1, 2000, and read a couple of excerpts, obviously consistent with what Senator Downe was speaking to. Speaker Molgat said:

I remind honourable senators that the position of the Speaker in this place is very different from that of the Speaker in the other place. The practice and long-established custom is that senators regulate themselves, and that the Speaker has a limited responsibility insofar as interfering.

Also, toward the end of the ruling:

Having said that, honourable senators, the rules indicate that as Speaker I have no authority in this matter. I do not have, as the House of Commons has, the authority to name a senator. If I did take that authority, I would have no means of enforcing it. It is up to the chamber.

That is as Senator Downe pointed out.

Honourable senators, when it comes to language that is not parliamentary, there is no rule in our chamber that lists unparliamentary language. They do have that list in the House of Commons and in various other chambers. Of course, the beauty of this chamber is that it has ultimate leeway and the Speaker is not an arbitrator, like in the House of Commons, but more a barometer.

More importantly, I also want to point out, colleagues, that if we get into this habit of calling a point of order on every single word that we personally find offensive or not acceptable, depending on which side of the political issue we fall on, we will have points of order coming out of our ears, and the Speaker will be busier ruling on points of order than he will be calling votes on government legislation.

I was offended during Question Period today. And I think the government leader was offended when he heard the word “scheme” in my question. I saw his comportment: he took offence. I felt, based on the issue I was asking about at the time, that a scheme is in place, and he clearly doesn’t believe that is the case.

He then got up, and in his response he accused me of a “smear.” To “smear,” if you look up the definition, is pretty offensive. He might have actually offended my sensibilities, and I could have jumped up on a point of order — not during Question Period, because, if you know procedure, colleagues, you are not allowed to stand up on a point of order during Question Period and routine business. That is the tradition in this place.

There are two issues just on the Rules: number one, there is no prescriptive language in this chamber that is not parliamentary; and number two, there is no history of the Speaker having the authority to exercise and remediate what the chair might deem to be unacceptable. Having said that, because I have had the privilege to serve in that chair, the chair has the leeway to make sure there is order and decorum in the chamber and, of course, our Speaker has done an excellent job of that.

The language that is being called to question on this point of order is language that I’ve been using consistently during Question Period for a number of months, to be honest with you. I think it is consistent and applies to this government and this Prime Minister. I think it is grossly unfair, given the leeway and benevolence that the Speaker has shown in allowing me to use that language for such a short period of time, if, suddenly, he would find it offensive because someone’s sensibilities were tested more than usual. Those are some of the points that I wanted to share with the chamber.

Again, I call upon all of us to understand that this is a house of parliament, and we sometimes engage on very controversial and contentious issues. In the heat of debate, on legislation or in Question Period or at committee — even sometimes with our best friends — we will sometimes feel that somebody crossed the line when it came to addressing us or the issues that we believe in.

I’m sure His Honour will take this under advisement and come back with a sage ruling, and I will, of course, acquiesce to that final ruling. Thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I can tell you that in the 14 years that I have served in this chamber, I have heard a number of questions of privilege. None have gone to the core of what we do here more than this one. I want to thank Senator Tannas for, in a very thoughtful way, bringing up this question of privilege and arguing it factually.

When I first heard of this, it was just before our committee meeting on Wednesday — I believe it was — which I chaired. It raised a number of flags, and I want to address them all.

First, in response to the arguments from the government leader in the Senate, no one is attacking the journalist, their right to maintain their sources or operate and run whatever stories with whatever narrative they feel free to do so.

The story just raised a red flag. It didn’t actually lead to any conclusions — I don’t think — on the part of Senator Tannas hearing his question of privilege, in Senator Plett’s case or in my case. But what that flag did do, it asked questions. And the questions, Senator Gold, it asked were to get some more information from the witness himself, who in testimony before a Senate committee at this chamber said that he felt intimidated and bullied. Those were his words, and he invited us to look at the testimony in the other house in order to confirm that.

Furthermore, your argument, Senator Gold, about questioning the question of privilege on technicality and procedure, about it being brought forward at its earliest opportunity — in itself on an issue so important — is shameful because the government, and you as government leader, should be really concerned about the nefarious nature of these accusations far more than trying to shut them down using some procedural tool.

I will reinforce — because I happen to be the chair of the committee — that, again, in good faith, after the article that raised the flag — after the comments, Your Honour, of the witness before our committee — the committee asked him to table the document that he had from the Commissioner of Lobbying, which he did. That document came to the clerk — at least to my attention — at around quarter to 12 on Thursday. Thus, based on your argument, it was not the earliest opportunity. He wouldn’t be able to make the deadline three hours before that sitting, but, more importantly, the document wasn’t bilingual. I asked the clerk to have it translated, and it was officially tabled with the committee on Monday. I suspect that’s when Senator Tannas saw it, and that in itself raised a lot of questions for me.

That’s in regard to your feeble argument today in defence of this question of privilege.

Now, in terms of my colleague Senator Saint-Germain — I thank you for your arguments, Senator Saint-Germain, because it reinforces how important this question of privilege is. You’re absolutely right; the witness came before us, and he said what he said. You say that in itself shows how he was comfortable; he came before this house of Parliament.

But the truth of the matter is, he was intimidated and bullied to such an extent that as a witness — as an individual Canadian — he felt compelled to go before an officer of Parliament — the Commissioner of Lobbying — a few days or weeks before his testimony to get security of allegations that were made by two parliamentarians. Why were those allegations made? Senator Saint-Germain, when a parliamentarian tells a witness — a Canadian citizen — that they’re a liar and a lobbyist, when they’re before the committee or outside the purview of that committee, that is outrageous.

We have privileges here. We are guardians of this institution, but an individual Canadian citizen who wants to come before a committee and is then attacked by two members of Parliament about lying and being a lobbyist — to the point where he felt compelled to go to the Commissioner of Lobbying to get a letter in order to justify, “Hey, I’m safe,” is inexcusable. That in itself is the argument that there is something deeply nefarious going on here, and we need to get to the bottom of it.

Colleagues, the truth of the matter is that Parliament and the Senate are the custodians of democracy and freedom, and it should be concerning on our part when the executive branch of government overreaches and, at some point in time, feels they can intimidate testimony just because they don’t agree. This is our ultimate job.

Like I said, I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but we have an obligation to get to the bottom of why this individual felt the way he did now more than ever.

Also, if you go to the House testimony, you realize it wasn’t a one-off. There were a couple of people who were bullied to the point where parliamentarians had to be called to order by other colleagues to stop that bullying.

All stakeholders and all individuals need to feel secure when they come before their parliamentary bodies. They need to feel they can come and express themselves without intimidation — without bullying — regardless of which side of the debate they are on. It’s only normal. We expect that courtesy amongst ourselves in this chamber. It doesn’t matter if it’s the opinion of 2 senators versus 103, or whatever the case may be. I think that’s ultimately important.

The fact is that Mr. Benzie, in particular, is not a lobbyist. He is a Canadian content producer who is trying to articulate on behalf of his livelihood and his industry vis-à-vis a bill. The fact that he cannot afford high-priced lobbyists to come to the corridors of power in order to articulate himself is even more reason that we need to make sure these voices are protected more than anyone else’s. We all know the business in this town. High‑priced lobbyists come here — they’re paid to be combative, they send us emails and chase us down the corridors, and they have friends of friends who call us in order to get a hearing. But when, again, a single individual — and that’s what Mr. Benzie is — comes and testifies before our committees, it is incumbent on us to make sure they’re heard.

Colleagues, let’s keep in mind that in 2015, this government promised more transparency, accountability and democracy than ever before. Tampering with a witness and tampering with testimony, either through media or at committee itself, should raise a lot of red flags.

Unlike Senator Saint-Germain, I can tell you — as the chair of a committee who is in constant contact with the clerk — there are a number of witnesses who expressed an interest, at the beginning of our study back in June, in appearing before our committee but who are currently not answering our calls. It’s one thing for witnesses to say, “Sorry, we heard enough testimony, our issues have been addressed and we don’t want to come before the committee.” It’s a whole other situation where I know of a couple of witnesses who were vociferous about coming before our committee in June and are currently no longer responding.

Honourable senators, I will terminate by saying that I think the remedy in the past was to send this to the Rules Committee for review and to have a thorough inquiry, but now, as a chair, I am very uncomfortable, and I question — we should all question — the contamination of this study. We know what happened on the House side. We took measures to make sure it doesn’t happen on this side — that every witness is heard and that we take the time to do a thorough study. But when I start hearing witnesses say they’ve been intimidated, I think there is nothing scarier than that. Our judicial and parliamentary systems have to be transparent, clear and fair.

Your Honour, I leave this to your wisdom to determine.

[Translation]