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?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Any other arguments?

Again, on this issue, the Speaker did make some remarks that supplementary questions during Question Period should be related to the first question. Please, honourable senators, bear that in mind during Question Period next week.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?