Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator. As I already responded today, my understanding is that there was, in fact, a process of consultation that gave rise to the suggestions that found their way into this particular redesign.

With regard to your particular suggestion, again, I would be happy to bring it to the attention of the appropriate minister.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Colleagues, I’m not in a position to comment on the decisions and actions of CSIS, or any other security agency, with regard to how they may address matters of national security.

As the Prime Minister recently stated, he will be instructing CSIS to lower the threshold in determining what constitutes a sufficient level of concern. Going forward, the government has made it clear to CSIS that threats to any parliamentarians, regardless of the level of threat, need to be fully briefed up.

I would certainly be happy to bring the concerns and suggestions that you have raised to the attention of the Minister of Public Safety.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the government leader in the Senate. It was mentioned earlier that the Royal Canadian Legion expressed its disappointment when the Trudeau government removed the image of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial, as it signifies the sacrifices made for the very sort of freedom that the passport provides.

In March, the Legion said it wants assurances from the Trudeau government that the money announced in this year’s budget to tackle the backlog in disability benefits will be spent. The Legion pointed to the most recent public accounts, which show that Veterans Affairs Canada did not spend $920 million in 2022. Leader, when I raised this issue with you a year ago, the amount of funding lapsed by Veterans Affairs Canada in 2021 was over $634 million.

Why has your government allowed over $1.5 billion to lapse at Veterans Affairs Canada in just two years — when thousands of applications remain in the backlog?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I have a question for Senator Gold, please. Senator Gold, less than a month ago, on April 17, Vladimir Kara-Murza, one of the Kremlin’s most prominent critics, was sentenced to 25 years in prison after the court found him guilty of treason, spreading false information about the Russian army and being affiliated with an undesirable organization. What was his actual crime? Defying Putin.

Mr. Kara-Murza’s wife has noted that her husband’s sentence far exceeds the Russian criminal code’s penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment for the most severe crimes. The trial — behind closed doors, despite no state secrets being implicated — has been likened to Stalin’s sham trials of the 1930s to eliminate dissidents.

Mr. Kara-Murza is no stranger to this chamber, having played an instrumental role in our Parliament’s unanimous adoption of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act in 2017, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law. In 2016, he testified before our Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on increasing erosion of fundamental elements of a functioning democracy, including free media, free and fair elections, an independent judiciary and an active civil society, as well as repressive persecution of pro-democracy defenders, including himself.

Now Vladimir Kara-Murza is locked away, and he will not be the last to be silenced and abused by Russia.

Senator Gold, what is the Canadian government doing to call out human rights violations by the Russian state against its own citizens?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are you, Senator Plett, raising a point of order?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Would any other senators like to speak on this point of order?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I did not understand Senator Carignan to say that he was rising on a point of order, but I will ask for the sake of argument and openness.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan, do you wish to raise a point of order on this matter?

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 —

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Carignan, I respect the point you have raised, which is nearly a point of order. I would remind you that Speaker Furey delivered a ruling on this matter last week.

[English]

Hon. Claude Carignan: Madam Speaker, during question period, I always make a point of addressing the Leader of the Government as “government leader.” Earlier, a senator stated that he would call the leader by his title, “Government Representative,” implying that calling him “government leader” shows a lack of respect.

I would like to point out that rule 4-8(1) of the Rules of the Senate states that senators may ask a question of the Leader of the Government. Throughout the Rules of the Senate, we see the title “Leader of the Government.” The Parliament of Canada Act refers to the Leader of the Government.

Therefore, the Leader of the Government is free to call himself the government go-between, the agent of the government or any other title, but he is the Leader of the Government. I do not see how addressing the Leader of the Government as “government leader” is disrespectful.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Plett, just a second. Let us clarify this.

Senator Carignan didn’t raise a point of order; he just stood up. Are you now raising a point of order, Senator Plett?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The Government of Canada deplores the guilty verdict handed down to Vladimir Kara-Murza for simply the “crime” of making legitimate political comments aimed at a better and safer future for Russia and for the Russian people. It is another example of Russia’s gross violations of international rights and lack of respect for basic principles of due process. It is clear that Russia continues to completely disregard respect for democratic principles and for universal human rights, including freedom of speech, in relation to its own people and others around the world.

Canada has always stood for the protection and promotion of human rights around the world. We’ve done so for decades now and will continue to do so. The Senate can be reassured that this government is seized with this issue and is doing what is necessary to call out the government of Russia for these violations of human rights.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The minister engaged in consultations with key stakeholders and the Canadian public so that the path forward can be fully informed by all relevant considerations. Those consultations have borne fruit.

It’s my understanding that the government is, in fact, drafting legislation, and, indeed, we can expect it in the coming months. This is legislation that is important and will be dealt with and drafted with due care.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, in regard to rule 2-5(1), it states that, “When the Speaker has heard sufficient argument to reach a decision, a ruling may be made . . . .”

Honourable senators, I take your arguments under advisement and shall come back with a ruling.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 10, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 16, 2023, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 3:29 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 16, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: consideration of Motion No. 101, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-13(2), I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

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.