Your Honour, I hope you will indulge me. I’m rising on two points of order. I wasn’t in the chamber Thursday evening when Senator Lankin raised a point of order, so I didn’t have an opportunity to speak to it. I would like to make some very brief comments, if I could.

Senator Plett, are you asking me to reopen debate on a point of order? If so, I have done it in the past, and if you say there are others who are interested in participating in the debate, and I know that there may be, I’m prepared to open it up, but I will only entertain new items.

Thank you, Your Honour. I apologize. I should have asked first.

As I said, there was debate last Thursday evening on Motion No. 14:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on the Government of Canada’s decision to award a contract for a student grant program to WE Charity . . . .

During that debate, Senator Lankin raised a point of order regarding language used by Senator Housakos in his speech.

Your Honour, you have been in this chamber for quite a few years now. I am sure that last Thursday you said to yourself that, yes, the language used by Senator Housakos to describe the relationship between the Prime Minister and WE Charity was sharp but that you have heard much sharper language before in this Senate Chamber to describe a Prime Minister. I want to reassure you; you are right. You have heard much worse.

Your Liberal colleagues repeatedly used words such as “scandal,” “fraud,” “breach of trust,” “bribery” and other similar terms to describe the actions of the Conservative government. I remember well a speech by Senator Cowan in December 2013, when he used the term “bribery” four times, “breach of trust” four times, “fraud” six times, and “scandal” six times in one single speech. We all considered then, as we should still consider today, that this is part of the political discourse. Therefore, on this basis, I invite you to reject Senator Lankin’s point of order.

During the same debate on Thursday, Senator Dupuis seemed to raise a question of privilege. I said “seemed to” because her intent was not clear. During the weekend, I reviewed Hansard and decided that, since it was not clear if there was a question of privilege, I should not take any chance of Your Honour ruling on it before I had the opportunity to offer some arguments.

I do not believe that Senator Dupuis raised a valid question of privilege. She summarized her argument by closing with the following:

Invoking parliamentary privilege to attack, for political or other reasons, public officials before this captive audience of senators is unacceptable.

Questioning, criticizing and attacking public officials for decisions they have made is the essence of Parliament. Parliamentary privilege does not insulate senators from hearing criticism of their political leaders and allies. This is a bizarre — some would even say ridiculous — argument and is not, in my opinion, a valid basis for a question of privilege. However, it allows me to raise my concerns with the approach of some of our colleagues. Some do not seem to understand the notion of parliamentary privilege. I don’t want to give a master class on privilege here today, so I invite all senators to read the Eleventh Report from the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Rights of Parliament entitled, Parliamentary Privilege: Then and Now.

Finally, should Your Honour rule that Senator Housakos indeed should not have accused the Prime Minister of bribery, as he apparently did last Thursday, I suggest that we then hear from all the key players involved in the WE scandal, starting with, but not limited to, the additional participants in the scandalous affair: Prime Minister Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire, Alexandre Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau, former finance minister Bill Morneau, the Kielburger brothers and other officials of WE to appear before a Committee of the Whole to explain their position. This would allow all senators to determine if Senator Housakos’s language was over the line, as Senator Lankin has said. Before we condemn Senator Housakos, he should have a chance to prove that there was indeed nefarious activity by the Prime Minister and his family.

Let’s never forget that, in the chamber, we should always seek to ensure accountability, regardless of who is in power.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Honourable senators will know it’s my usual practice on points of orders and questions of privilege, as it is with most Speakers in Westminster systems of government, that, once you finish debate in the chamber, you no longer entertain either written or oral submissions unless it’s a case where a senator asks for special reason to have the debate reopened, and I have done that in the past.

Last night, I received written notice from a senator that I was not going to take into consideration, but since Senator Plett has asked for and received permission to reopen debate, I will take that into consideration. It was a letter from Senator Dupuis outlining some of her points, so that will be taken into consideration as well.

Your Honour, I thank Senator Plett for raising additional points for consideration. I have to admit, the mischievous side of me is urged to move the adjournment of the Senate at this point in time, but I won’t do that.

I do want to say, Your Honour, in response to his point, the fact that this kind of language has been accepted, tolerated and used in this chamber over the years is, to me, of no import to the consideration of the situation we are in.

I want to ask you to reflect on the question that if the accusation of accepting a bribe and giving political favours — which Senator Housakos alleged of the Prime Minister, his family and then-Minister Morneau — is not over the line of the Rules of this chamber, what would be?

I am well aware of the argument that Senator Plett put forward around parliamentary privilege. I have sat in a legislative chamber, I have seen the points of order around parliamentary language and I realize the rules are different in each legislature, and in the House of Commons and here. We have a different history.

I also recognize the previous rulings. I would say there has been — within this new independent Senate, and the reforms that we are bringing forward — the type of decorum we are trying to establish, and the less partisan nature, except for the official opposition, of course, in their role. I do admire the political tactics they are using to get their issue out there. I get that, too. But I would ask you to give serious consideration to what the rule for “sharp or taxing” language actually means and when it would be of any use to us in terms of calling decorum to this chamber, if not now. Thank you very much.

Senator Housakos, you are well aware that rule 2-5(1) allows me to entertain debate to the point where I feel I’ve heard enough, so if you have something new to add, please go ahead.

Your Honour, I’m jumping back into the debate after Senator Lankin has done likewise. I want to respond to a couple of key points.

This institution is a parliamentary chamber and language is very flexible. We have latitude by the Speaker to do our work. I think my colleague has appropriately pointed out several occasions where similar language has been used.

For my colleague to say this is an attempt on our part to be tactical is completely unfair. We make and review laws in this country, and I think it’s appropriate on my behalf if I want to investigate sections 119 and 121 of the Criminal Code to see if they apply to an executive branch of the government when they’re doing something inappropriate, because that’s fundamentally our job. I think that’s what this place is about and I think all of us should start doing our job.

Your Honour, this is just a point that I wanted to make in light of what Senator Lankin has added. That is how important the history of the Senate is, and what was said in the past. I recall that when I first became deputy leader I received a giant book, the Companion to the Rules of the Senate of Canada, with all sorts of Speakers’ rulings and explanations. Its application was to provide context. I thought that was extremely helpful to me and I read it from beginning to end. That has been the way I have come to understand and appreciate the Rules of the Senate, and I’m only speaking to that point that we must look at what has happened in the past. I know that it’s not precedent-setting per se.

With leave, we’re allowed to do a lot of different things in this chamber, and I think our debate on the chamber floor allows us to enter into such debate. They may be difficult and harsh at times, but we all do our best to stay focused on the issue at hand. I advise all senators if they have not had a chance to take time to read the Companion to the Rules of the Senate of Canada because there are excellent examples that should inform us to this day.

I see there are a couple of more senators who wish to participate in the debate. I would just caution you that the debate concerns whether or not certain language used by a senator was unparliamentary. We don’t need to really hear outside views about what people think of particular lead ups or things that have gone on in the past, unless, of course, somebody wants to point to an order or ruling from the past, and that would certainly be appropriate. The purpose of reopening the debate was to hear any new debate.

When I spoke in the Senate on Thursday evening, I very clearly stated, as the blues will show, that I was rising in support of the point of order and that I could have raised a question of privilege. I reread the blues. They are clear. I just wanted to reassure my colleagues that I spoke clearly in support of the point of order raised by Senator Lankin.

I will stop there in order to obey the instructions you just gave about sticking to the essential issues surrounding this debate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would like to thank all senators who have taken part in the debate, and I will take it under advisement.