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. Leo Housakos: In his ruling.

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.

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.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you, Senator Housakos.

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.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

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.