The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I thank Senator Plett for raising this point of order. I thank all senators who have participated. It has been quite a lengthy and extensive debate. I understand from the table and from the scroll meeting this morning that there will not be an agreement not to see the clock. I’m wondering if we could have the consent of the Senate to suspend now until eight o’clock, which will give me some time to put together a lot of what I have heard today.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Agreed. The Senate will suspend until 8 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Your Honour, I’d like to raise a point that hasn’t been addressed so far. In your consideration of the point of order raised earlier today, I draw your attention to the fact that there is a discrepancy between the English and French versions of rule 7-2(1) of the Rules of the Senate.

In your consideration of this point of order, I’d like you to clarify this matter. In your interpretation of the question, I would like you to examine in particular the two different versions. The English version, which reads “have failed to agree,” doesn’t mean the same thing as the French version, which reads “n’ont pu se mettre d’accord pour fixer un délai.”

I wanted to bring this to your attention. I don’t want to take up any more of your time. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): This is truly a dark day for the Senate of Canada.

With respect, Your Honour, you said that the government leader says — or you refer to belonging to the government party. Senator Gold, of course, does not belong to the government party. By his own admission, he doesn’t belong to the government party.

I am extremely disappointed that this ruling would have come down without it being in writing. Clearly, this was — please, senators. I respect your right to your opinion. Have respect for mine. Except for yours, possibly. I’m getting a little tired.

Your Honour, I have the utmost respect for you, even though I may struggle with respect for others, but I want to have the utmost respect for this chamber and everybody here. And just because we, as the opposition, have a role to play as the opposition, which Senator Lankin has been a part of and, when she was a member of the opposition, did what this opposition party does, and she has a very short memory.

Senator Lankin: I never said —

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I am ready to rule on Senator Plett’s point of order. Let me start by thanking all of you for your input on this important matter. Since this notice was given last Thursday, I have been reviewing a range of issues relating to our time allocation process, and my ruling is the result of my own reflection and your arguments.

I believe that there are, in essence, two issues involved in the point of order: first, the procedural requirement to indicate a lack of agreement; and, second, the fundamental issue of whether Senator Gold, as Government Representative, can initiate this process at all.

On the first point — the matter of agreement and consultations — rule 7-2(1) states that, “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 an item of Government Business.

In terms of any requirements for consultations or agreement, the wording of rule 7-2(1) is quite specific. The test is whether there has been a failure to agree to allocate time. A ruling of September 20, 2000, dealt with this concern. Speaker Molgat noted that the senator making the statement must be taken at their word. The Speaker went on to say: “All I have before me is a motion stating that they have reached no agreement at this point, the rule has been followed and the terms have been set out.” This was sufficient for debate on the time allocation motion to go ahead. The same analysis applies in the current case.

Having dealt with this initial issue, I will turn to the second concern in the point of order, which is the basic issue of whether Senator Gold can even initiate — or has a role in — the processes under Chapter 7 of the Rules.

As made clear in a ruling of May 19, 2016, regarding government positions in the Senate, Senator Gold, as Government Representative, is indeed Government Leader. The Government Representative routinely exercises the rights and responsibilities of that position.

Appendix I of the Rules defines the Government Leader as “The Senator who acts as the head of the Senators belonging to the Government party.” The very definition of the Government Leader thus makes clear that the senator occupying that position has a role that is analogous to, if not equivalent of, that of a party leader.

Appendix I recognizes that the definitions it contains are inherently flexible and depend on context, specifically stating that the definitions are to be interpreted in light of circumstances. The procedures for time allocation, which were introduced into the Rules in 1991, exist to allow the government the option of requesting, when it thinks appropriate, that the Senate agree to set limits to the duration of debate on an item of Government Business.

In light of the basic objective of the time allocation process, and the definitions in the Rules, it is appropriate that Senator Gold can play the role envisioned in Chapter 7 for the Government Leader.

It is also important to underscore that the government is not able to unilaterally impose time allocation on the Senate. Time allocation is proposed by the government, and the Senate itself must agree, or not, to the motion. Allowing the motion to go forward can, therefore, be understood as broadening the range of options open to the Senate. The government would have to explain and defend its proposal, which senators can then accept or reject. If senators reject the government’s proposal, debate continues according to normal practices.

In summary, honourable senators, the intent of Chapter 7 favours allowing debate on Senator Gold’s proposal to continue, which would widen the range of choices available to the Senate, and fits within the definitions contained in our Rules. The ruling is, therefore, that the motion is in order and debate can continue.

Some Hon. Senators: Shame on you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, order, please.

The Hon. the Speaker: Order, please. Honourable senators, the question is as follows:

Shall the Speaker’s ruling be sustained? All those in favour of the Speaker’s ruling will please say “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Is there agreement on a bell?

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

An Hon. Senator: One hour.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed will please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will take place at 9:10 p.m. Call in the senators.

Speaker’s ruling adopted on the following division:

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. Raymonde Saint-Germain: I’m flummoxed by the reason for this point of order. As far as I’m concerned, we’re referring to events that apparently took place today. My recollection is that while senators were speaking, several senators were commenting on the remarks from this side of the House. I have no recollection of having heard a derogatory remark or seen a threatening attitude, as was just said, by any senator before the sitting was suspended. In my opinion, if the Senate sitting is suspended, there’s no reason to raise a point of order.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I was very surprised by Senator Housakos’ point of order and Senator Carignan’s speech on the issue of respect. It is very rare on this side of the House — well, it doesn’t happen.

During Question Period, from where I sit, I always hear, generally speaking, noises and comments that show a consistent lack of respect for Senator Gold’s answers.

I’m telling you this because from where I am, I see everything. If there was some disrespect in the exchange that you’re talking about — which I doubt — that is something we see every day in QP, absolutely.

[English]