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.

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 —

In his ruling.

— in his ruling. So today —

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?

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.

Are you, Senator Plett, raising a point of order?

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.

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.

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

Would any other senators like to speak on this point of order?

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.

I will be brief. Again, Your Honour, I really don’t think it is up to any one senator here to all of a sudden determine that, “This is acceptable to me, so you can call the government leader this, and this is not acceptable to me.” Very clearly, there was an insinuation made that it was a lack of respect for us to call the government leader the government leader or possibly the Liberal leader. Again, the government is a Liberal government.

As our Speaker said a week ago when he ruled on a point of order, Senator Gold is, in fact, a member of the government and the leader of the government, which is a Liberal government. I will leave it at that, and when this is done, Your Honour, I have another point of order.

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.

Thank you, Senator Housakos.

If I may finish my point of order, I think we’ve earned that right on this side of the chamber. I am trying to finish the case that number one, it is in the Rules, in the law, that he is the government leader. We insist that there is at least a respect and an appreciation for the Rules and the law in this institution.

We didn’t get a written copy of the Speaker’s ruling unfortunately because we remember it was done in haste when he ruled on the government having the right to use closure. In that ruling, he made it clear that Senator Gold was the leader of the government. That was the ruling as we understood it. If anybody wants to challenge it, they can go ahead on a point of order.

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.