Senator Plett: Well, the fact of the matter is — I think if we check Hansard, we’ll see — that Senator Carignan rose on a point of order. You may not have understood that, Your Honour, but Senator Carignan clearly stood on a point of order and raised a point of order.

Senator Plett: Again, Your Honour, I will be raising another point of order in a minute, but right now we are dealing with a point of order that Senator Carignan raised. That is what he did.

Senator Carignan: No prime minister lasts forever, but the government and the Liberal Party are here to stay. This proposal was brought forward by the Liberal Party, this Liberal government, and some of the government members who were present endorsed it.

Whose job will it be to trace the sources? Should it be the CRTC’s job, or do the Liberals want to create a new politburo?

Senator Carignan: Yes, I was raising a point of order. That’s what I said. I raised the point of order because we shouldn’t be criticized for calling the government leader “government leader.” According to the Rules of the Senate, when we ask questions in the chamber, we ask them of the Leader of the Government.

He can use whatever title he wants for himself. He can refer to himself as the go-between or whatever he wants, but he is the Leader of the Government. As my leader just mentioned, Speaker Furey’s ruling called him the government leader, so I find it strange to hear someone criticize me or imply that I am being disrespectful simply for calling him “government leader.”

[English]

Hon. Claude Carignan: The person who designed the passport is more of a fan of the Granby Zoo than a history buff.

On another subject, members of the government passed a resolution at your party’s convention — the Liberal Party, that is. Resolution 472 asks the government to limit the publication of online information, which obviously includes newspaper articles. It says, and I quote, “. . . limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.”

After passing Bill C-11, the censorship bill, now the Liberals want to hunt down sources. Even though Parliament unanimously passed a law to protect journalistic sources, it is now government policy to hunt down sources.

Leader, is this the result of Chinese interference? Sources spoke out and embarrassed the government, so now it has decided to make it government policy to hunt down journalistic sources?

Hon. Claude Carignan: I think it is important to come back to this country’s shortage of judges, which can be attributed to the inertia of the government you represent.

When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada takes the liberty of publicly rebuking your government, it’s a sign that the situation has become intolerable and that it’s jeopardizing timely access to justice.

Senator Gold, you know how the selection process for judges works. I am familiar with it, having spent three years on a judicial advisory committee. There is a pool of potential judges who have been pre-approved by the committees, so all your Prime Minister has to do is use the list of recommended candidates to fill the 85 judicial vacancies.

I can’t help but remember Radio-Canada’s exposé from October 2020 about how the judicial selection process was being politicized by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Leader, can you assure us that the reason the Prime Minister isn’t filling this country’s judicial vacancies isn’t that there aren’t enough card-carrying Liberals among the candidates pre‑approved by independent committees? If that’s not the reason, then can you tell us what is?

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: 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?

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. 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.