Point of Order
Speaker’s Ruling Reserved
December 3, 2020
Your Honour, I want to raise a point of order. I raised my hand with the virtual tools we have here, and I also sent a message to the technical folks that I was raising my hand on a point of order.
I think we all heard Senator Housakos accuse the Prime Minister of bribery — the government, the Prime Minister, the family — but the word “bribe” was clearly used. I know, Your Honour, that you are loath to wade into our debates and deliberations, but you’ve urged us many times not to use sharp and taxing language.
I think this goes over the line on that. Bribery is a charge under the Criminal Code, so the honourable senator just made an accusation of criminal activity. In a rhetorical sense, he’s entitled to his opinion and I would never take that away from any senator, but I think accusing government officials of bribery when there is no evidence and no suggestion of criminal activity is over the line. I think the senator should be asked to withdraw that.
Thank you very much, Your Honour.
Senator Lankin is raising a point of order under rule 6-13(1). Senator Housakos, do you wish to reply?
I do, Your Honour, thank you very much.
We obviously have our privileges in this chamber to express ourselves as we see fit. I exercise that privilege. I would like to respond to Senator Lankin.
I’ve had the integrity and decency to go above and beyond that, because the claims I’ve made in my speech today, under my privilege and immunity as a parliamentarian, I have already made on social media; I made those declarations public. I’ve encouraged the Prime Minister, if he wants, to take actions against me in dealing with those declarations. He has the freedom to do so, and I’d be more than happy to see him in a court of law and cross-examine him in a court of law.
I stand by my statement. I believe the WE Charity gave payments to his mother, brother and wife at various times, and in a complete conflict of interest and breach of the Criminal Code, months later, there was an exchange of government grants and funds.
This Prime Minister has done this on a number of occasions. I called him out when he took two luxury trips to the Aga Khan’s island and, a few months later, the foundation of the Aga Khan received tens of millions of dollars in decisions that were taken by the cabinet where the Prime Minister did not excuse himself when he was in a clear conflict of interest.
Regarding everything I’ve expressed in this chamber just now, I have done publicly, and I stand by them. I’d be more than happy to face the consequences, because I have had the courage to make those claims out in the public sphere.
Shame! Shame!
Before carrying on, there are a number of senators who want to enter the debate. I remind you that rule 6-13(1) pertains to matters that occur within the chamber; what occurs outside the chamber is essentially of no concern with respect to this particular rule.
Senator Lankin, I know you want to speak, but I also see Senator Dalphond rising, so I’m going to let him speak next.
Thank you, Your Honour.
I think I just heard Senator Housakos go even further than what was said in his speech. I think that is contrary to rule 6-13(1) because this is unparliamentary — he may say it in the press or when he makes a speech with Mr. O’Toole somewhere in Montreal that he thinks the government has “bribed” and all these things.
That is one thing, but when he engages and participates in debate, he has to govern himself according to the rules of this place, where decorum is important and where dignity and respect for the institutions and those who serve the country — as ministers, as prime ministers, as senators or MPs— are important. That’s why we have this rule:
All personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.
To say that somebody has committed a crime when perhaps he has breached the code of ethics of the House of Commons is confusing things on purpose. It’s lying to this place. It’s misleading the public, who are watching.
This is unparliamentary, Your Honour, and I think the Honourable Senator Housakos must withdraw these words and apologize. Thank you.
Not to provoke Senator Housakos into giving his speech again, which is what he just did in response to the point of order, I would like you, Your Honour, to consider that it is also about the reputation of this august institution. It is about the conduct expected of senators. It’s about our code of ethics not to bring this institution into disrepute. It’s a range of those things.
But surely, the rule in question of not using sharp and taxing language, and insisting that it is unparliamentary, has to have some meaning. While I do appreciate that you always try to ask senators to conduct themselves appropriately, and in the cut and thrust of debate, sometimes these things happen, this was very much a political positioning. I think most of us would agree with that, even if Senator Housakos denies it. I think it was over the line of that rule and I would ask you please ask him to withdraw.
I’d like to rise in support of the point of order that was raised. I believe that, as senators, we could also have raised a question of privilege. Senator Housakos’s lack of consideration, not only for the people he is accusing, but also for senators who, like me, are participating in this meeting this evening, is unacceptable.
Therefore, I’m asking you to consider this point of order, otherwise I intend to raise a question of privilege regarding this attempt to limit our ability, as senators, to exercise our duties at an extremely difficult time not only in the history of humanity in general, but also in that of the Canadian people, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
I believe that we are all required to observe, as parliamentarians and unelected lawmakers, a minimum of restraint in our interventions in this chamber. Invoking parliamentary privilege to attack, for political or other reasons, public officials before this captive audience of senators is unacceptable.
There is nothing in the language that I used in my speech or since the speech, when I rose to speak on the point of order, that is unparliamentary. Over the years I have very carefully followed procedures in the House of Commons, the Senate and other Westminster parliamentary bodies, and there is not a single word that I used in my speech that a speaker would call unparliamentary language. I was making reference to a code of ethics, which all parliamentarians are expected to abide by. I made reference to the Criminal Code, the laws of this country, and we expect them to be applied regardless of to whom they apply.
We have the right and privilege to express ourselves freely — freedom of expression — under our parliamentary privilege. I, under no circumstances, used taxing language as is recognized historically by speakers in this chamber. No one will take away the right of any parliamentarian to call out in the public arena members of the executive that we feel have breached the code of ethics, which this Prime Minister has done on three confirmed occasions and is still being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner. For that matter, my understanding is that the RCMP made declarations a few weeks ago that they are investigating and looking into the WE charity scandal.
At the end of the day, we have the right as parliamentarians to make sure that our Criminal Code and code of ethics that we put together are respected. We are allowed to freely express ourselves. When parliamentarians might have a vested political interest and they get up to defend a member of the executive branch whom they don’t want to face criticism, under the guise of a point of order, because you feel my language or my questions were too pointed, I have the right to do so. No one has the right to take that away from me. I simply responded to Senator Lankin, and I have done it in the public arena as well. It’s not as if I have been a coward. I’m doing it under my parliamentary privilege, which I clearly have. Thank you, honourable senators.
I want to thank all senators who participated in this debate. I will take the matter under advisement.
