Your Honour, I’m asking your indulgence today for me to make a few remarks to a point of order that Senator Downe raised on March 30. He raised a point of order about some inflammatory language being used in the Senate. The reason I’m doing this today is that it referenced — or he at least suggested later that it referenced — comments that Senator Housakos and I had made during Question Period. We were, of course, the first two up in Question Period, and by the time Question Period was done and Senator Downe made the motion, we did not get up to debate this.

So I am asking today for your indulgence for me and possibly other senators who would like to make a few comments in relation to this charge.

Thank you for your comments, Senator Plett. It’s unusual that once we have had a point of order raised and I’ve asked others if they want to comment to open it up again. However, it’s not something that I haven’t done in the past, and I am prepared to do it again. However, I would remind anybody who wants to participate that we’re referring to rule 6-13(1), which pertains to “personal, sharp or taxing” unparliamentary language, and I would ask you to confine your comments to that particular section. Also, please be as brief as you possibly can.

Thank you, Your Honour. I like the words “brief as you possibly can,” and I will try to do that. However, in speaking to this particular issue and in reference to comments we made that were pertaining to the Prime Minister, in order for me to do justice, I at least need to list a number of illustrations to defend my position. But I will try to move along, Your Honour.

The comments that we did, in fact, make and that you have been asked to review questioned the language used when referring to Justin Trudeau and him having lied to Canadians. I must point out that when the Prime Minister is engaging in unparliamentary behaviour, it is impossible to address this behaviour accurately without using what is perceived as unparliamentary language in other contexts. I would argue that, in this context, the language is not unparliamentary. It was neither inflammatory, nor did it attribute motives. It simply stated facts. It was not an accusation, it was an observation, and this is the crux of the matter.

When the emperor parades around the country and clearly has no clothes on, it is not unparliamentary to say so. I would argue that it is unparliamentary not to say so or to try to prevent a parliamentarian from speaking the plain truth. If other senators and I are compelled to describe the unparliamentary behaviour of our Prime Minister in a manner that does not accurately reflect his behaviour, then, in fact, we are being asked to lie. We are being prevented from holding this government to account as the official opposition. I don’t think that is the intention of this chamber, but this is the practical outcome.

The question before us today is whether the language used accurately depicts the actions of the Prime Minister. I believe it does. The Prime Minister has demonstrated a repeated, habitual pattern of saying things that are proven to not be true, and I would like to take a few moments to provide clear evidence that supports this position.

Allow me to begin with the definition of the word “lie” by Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive” or “to create a false or misleading impression.” For further clarity, let me use the definition of Dictionary.com: “to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive” or “to express what is false; convey a false impression.”

When Senator Housakos said that the Prime Minister lied, he was clearly making reference to the commitment that the Prime Minister himself made to Canadians. Allow me to refresh all of our memories of exactly what Senator Housakos said:

In 2015, this Prime Minister made a commitment to the Canadian people that he would not have a debt run longer than two fiscal years, and he promised that he would balance the deficit by 2019. That’s what he promised.

The question is a simple one: Why did he lie to the Canadian people?

Later, my colleague said:

And yes, the Prime Minister lied; he misled Canadians when he made a commitment to balance the budget by 2019. In this town, we have to start coming up to speed with the fact that when we mislead taxpayers, we have to account for it somehow and not double down.

My colleague Senator Housakos’ comments speak directly to a promise by the Prime Minister and, regrettably, a promise not kept.

When a Prime Minister, a cabinet minister and a member of the government make a promise to Canadians, I believe that Canadians have the right to expect that the commitment is fulfilled. If it hasn’t been fulfilled, I further believe that Canadians have the right to expect that a serious opposition in the House of Commons and in the Senate has a responsibility to challenge the governing party on its inaction and failures.

The unfilled promise that Senator Housakos mentioned is just one example of many. I don’t think we need to list them all, but I certainly encourage in anyone interested in tracking the Prime Minister’s commitments to look up the numbers on Polimeter. In his tenure of more than 2,500 days in office, Prime Minister Trudeau’s government has a mediocre rate of 37% of promises kept and fulfilled.

Back to my comments on March 30. Although my comments were made in a similar fashion to my colleague, my intent was to address another angle altogether. What I referenced in my questions and comments was the ongoing and never-ending pattern of the Trudeau government deliberately not expressing or representing something accurately.

Last fall, many other members of the Conservative opposition and I repeatedly asked questions on who stayed at the outrageous $6,000-a-night hotel suite in London paid for by taxpayers. At the time, the Prime Minister refused to tell the truth to Canadians about this expense. No straight answers were given. He avoided the question. His carefully scripted response was vague in an attempt to avoid all scrutiny.

Prime Minister Trudeau originally campaigned on the promise of sunny ways and more openness and accountability. Unfortunately, we soon learned that the Prime Minister’s promises were only words left out in the open for him to lead Canadians on. Once in office, Prime Minister Trudeau’s priority quickly switched to working really hard at preventing Canadians from learning the truth, especially on decisions that could be damaging to his own public image.

Back to the question I posed on March 30, that you, Your Honour, have been asked to review: Who stayed at the luxurious $6,000-a-night hotel suite for a five-night stay at a cost of $30,000 to Canadian taxpayers? The Prime Minister’s Office was eventually obliged to fess up, and to no one’s surprise, it was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who disregarded the high cost of the luxury suite in London. This $6,000-a-night suite scandal is a slap in the face of hard-working Canadians who face the worst affordability crisis in a generation.

How did we learn that it was the Prime Minister who enjoyed this luxury? There were no apologies to taxpayers for this outrageous expense. There was no come-clean moment and realization of the mistake. The Prime Minister’s Office sheepishly provided information to a House of Commons committee in the shadow of U.S. President Biden’s visit to Parliament Hill. This was clearly a planned attempt to get away from any public scrutiny on this outrageous expense by the Prime Minister.

In hindsight, there was more truth to what Prime Minister Trudeau said all along during his stay in London, when he sang:

Caught in a landslide

No escape from reality

Open your eyes

Look up to the skies and see

I’m just a poor boy, I need no sympathy

Because I’m easy come, easy go

A little high, little low

Anyway the wind blows, doesn’t really matter to me, to me

Nothing really matters

Anyone can see

Nothing really matters nothing really matters to me

It seems that Prime Minister Trudeau needs to be reminded and needs to remember that it does matter. It matters because he is the current leader of our country, and that his words and actions impact Canadians. It matters because the price tag of this luxurious suite in London is on the back of hard-working Canadians. It matters because, in the face of economic uncertainty, Canadians want to see a Prime Minister lead by example, and this is a far cry from what Canadians expect and deserve.

The reporter who broke the $6,000 hotel suite story is Brian Lilley from the Toronto Sun. Allow me to quote from his March 30 article:

The Trudeau government really didn’t want this information out there and they worked hard to stop it from being released. It was only released last week and U.S. President Joe Biden was landing in Canada because a Commons committee had demanded the information and the PMO had run out of legal ways to keep the information secret.

Now, they want to blame the RCMP, claim that they needed the expensive room for Mounties providing security to Trudeau.

Brian Lilley concluded the article by saying:

Either the Liberals are really slipping and have been off their game for months on this high profile story, or they are lying to us now to cover this up.

Senator Plett, your historical background and comments on news stories are things that I am very much aware of and have at my disposal in terms of my research.

I really want you to stay to the point of the rule, which concerns “personal, sharp or taxing” comments made here in the chamber. I think what you are talking about now is not relevant to an interpretation of that rule. I allow some leeway in terms of commentaries, but if you could get back to how the rule is or is not offended, it would be more helpful to me in that regard.

Your Honour, I will attempt to do that. However, if I could at least suggest this: I made comments that were said to be unparliamentary and that I should not have made. I didn’t make them out of anger or malice; I made them out of an observation that we have a Prime Minister who has a hard time telling the truth. To me, when somebody does not tell the truth, that person is lying.

In order for me to make my case, Your Honour, I need to at least lay out some of the untruths — lies, in my opinion — that the Prime Minister has said.

I will try to go through this very rapidly, Your Honour, and try to draw this to a conclusion in the next minute or two.

Let me go back to what I said on March 30, when I said:

How can that explanation be trusted when the Prime Minister has lied on numerous occasions? How can that explanation be trusted when the Prime Minister could have said from the start but chose not to do so? Isn’t that misinformation?

Lastly, leader, as I said yesterday, when will Justin Trudeau realize he has lost the confidence of Canadians . . . ?

Your Honour, it is important that I share the context of that with everyone in this chamber.

Let me briefly point out what former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould said — and I am skipping through a lot here; I will wrap up. In her book entitled “Indian” in the Cabinet, she said she was mad at herself for once having thought that Prime Minister Trudeau:

. . . was an honest and good person . . . when, in truth, he would so casually lie to the public and then think he could get away with it.

Last week, Prime Minister Trudeau was again caught in a lie regarding the Trudeau Foundation when he said:

It’s a foundation in my father’s name that I have no direct or indirect connection with.

We heard yesterday how the family appoints two people to the foundation, how his siblings are part of the foundation and how, for a year and a half, they used marketing materials under Justin Trudeau’s name.

Your Honour, there are so many examples of falsehoods. I could go on. I will not.

I will just simply close, Your Honour, with this: Even the NDP has called out Prime Minister Trudeau’s lies, and yet they continue to put their support behind him and his government. Here is what the NDP promoted on their website:

Sign if you’re tired of Trudeau’s lies about pharmacare

Add your name to tell Justin Trudeau you’re sick of his lies.

Your Honour, I have made my case, but allow me to conclude with this comment: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Senator Housakos and I are only guilty of speaking the truth by making comments, as I mentioned in my remarks, that are factual and not unparliamentary in my humble opinion.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Senator Downe, I will recognize you next, but, again, colleagues, if you want to be of some help to me in making a decision, please stick to the interpretation of rule 6-13. I don’t need a history lesson regarding what has gone on in the media over the last year, 5 years or 10 years; I want to hear whether you think certain language is unparliamentary or not and why you think that, without assigning intention to people.

Thank you for the clarification, Your Honour. When I came into the Senate today, I thought we were conducting a fictional essay-writing contest when I heard Senator Plett’s speech because there was an absence of serious facts on the point of order.

When I raised the point of order originally, I did it in an intentionally vague way so as not to offend the Conservative members of the Senate. Obviously, that didn’t work, so let me be more direct today.

To your point, Your Honour, the issue is not what the Prime Minister said or did not say. The issue is the inappropriate language used in the Senate of Canada. That’s my point of order: The language of our colleagues was inappropriate.

As an aside, I understand the frustration. I have sat in this chamber in opposition to the government. Many days, I would get up and wonder why Prime Minister Harper was doing what he was doing. I don’t recall anyone at the time calling him a “liar.” In fact, I recall the Conservative government of the day in the Senate objecting to some senators calling him “Harper” as opposed to Prime Minister Harper. That’s how outrageous we were at the time. We are in a different place today. I don’t think it is helpful.

It is not imported from the United States. We have had a long history of this behaviour in Canada, but we have always been able to check it, and it is important that this institution rise to the occasion.

Directly to the point of order, I will say this: As Your Honour has indicated, rule 6-13(1) reads:

All personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.

Rule 6-13(2) reads:

When a Senator is called to order for unparliamentary language, any Senator may demand that the words be taken down in writing by the Clerk.

And rule 6-13(3) is as follows:

A Senator who has used unparliamentary words and who does not explain or retract them or offer an apology acceptable to the Senate shall be disciplined as the Senate may determine.

I will get to that last point at the conclusion of my remarks.

The purpose of these Rules is “. . . for the preservation of decorum and order in the Debates and proceedings of the Senate.” That is really the question before us: How do we want to keep decorum in debate in the Senate appropriate?

In Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, the largest number of rulings by the Speaker of the House of Commons deals with the term “lying,” “lies” or a similar expression. It is generally accepted that the term “lying” is considered unparliamentary behaviour as it can only serve to question the motives of any members regarding their actions. In 2000, the then-Speaker of the Senate made the following statement regarding the use of unparliamentary language about members of the House of Commons:

I return to my comment that it is important in this house that we treat each other with respect. It is equally important when we speak to persons outside this house, particularly those who cannot respond, that we treat them with respect.

In other words, if the person who is accused is not in the Senate to defend themselves.

Colleagues, as we all know, contrary to the House of Commons, the role of the Speaker of the Senate is very limited. It is up to the Senate itself to regulate its affairs. The Speaker cannot name a senator, like the House, and he cannot require an apology. In the same ruling mentioned above, the Speaker commented on his authority. This is again from 2000:

I remind honourable senators that the position of the Speaker in this place is very different from that of the Speaker in the other place. The practice and long-established custom is that senators regulate themselves, and that the Speaker has a limited responsibility insofar as interfering. I will admit the rule does provide, in case of serious conditions, that the Speaker can interfere, but normally that rule is not followed.

Having said that, honourable senators, the rules indicate that as Speaker I have no authority in this matter. I do not have, as the House of Commons has, the authority to name a senator. If I did take that authority, I would have no means of enforcing it. It is up to the chamber.

That raises the question of what we do. What we’ve done in the past is that the largest group in the Senate — and this time it would be the Independent Senators Group — decides what action should be taken. It is not my place as an individual, but, traditionally, the largest group in the Senate has worked on the conduct of the Senate. They have options for motions or calling a senator to the bar. That should be considered if they think this language is demeaning to the Senate of Canada. It is not the type of parliamentary language we should be using to try to get our points across, and it doesn’t serve the politics of Canada in any measure at all.

My final comment is that I can’t understand, quite frankly, why the Conservatives are doing it. Their base believes these comments anyway. And the swing voters, who may vote for them because of their opinion on justice or economic issues, are turned off by this behaviour. I don’t see the political upside, but that’s an aside.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Senator Downe, for your intervention. When Conservatives get to their feet in this chamber, it is not because of political expediency, and the language we use is not to appeal to our base or moderate voters. Our objective is to speak on behalf of Canadians on issues and express our feelings on the issues of the day, and that’s what we have done.

Your Honour, I spent some time this morning — not a considerable amount of time because I was informed shortly before that we would have this opportunity — and looked back at previous rulings. This chamber operates on the premise of procedural rules, our existing Rules that are in writing, and, of course, in large part, based on precedent. I tried to look up cases in the history of this august chamber when parliamentary language was called into question. I have to say that there haven’t been that many instances. There have been rulings by Speaker Molgat, Speaker Kinsella and Speaker Furey.

I will go back to March 1, 2000, and read a couple of excerpts, obviously consistent with what Senator Downe was speaking to. Speaker Molgat said:

I remind honourable senators that the position of the Speaker in this place is very different from that of the Speaker in the other place. The practice and long-established custom is that senators regulate themselves, and that the Speaker has a limited responsibility insofar as interfering.

Also, toward the end of the ruling:

Having said that, honourable senators, the rules indicate that as Speaker I have no authority in this matter. I do not have, as the House of Commons has, the authority to name a senator. If I did take that authority, I would have no means of enforcing it. It is up to the chamber.

That is as Senator Downe pointed out.

Honourable senators, when it comes to language that is not parliamentary, there is no rule in our chamber that lists unparliamentary language. They do have that list in the House of Commons and in various other chambers. Of course, the beauty of this chamber is that it has ultimate leeway and the Speaker is not an arbitrator, like in the House of Commons, but more a barometer.

More importantly, I also want to point out, colleagues, that if we get into this habit of calling a point of order on every single word that we personally find offensive or not acceptable, depending on which side of the political issue we fall on, we will have points of order coming out of our ears, and the Speaker will be busier ruling on points of order than he will be calling votes on government legislation.

I was offended during Question Period today. And I think the government leader was offended when he heard the word “scheme” in my question. I saw his comportment: he took offence. I felt, based on the issue I was asking about at the time, that a scheme is in place, and he clearly doesn’t believe that is the case.

He then got up, and in his response he accused me of a “smear.” To “smear,” if you look up the definition, is pretty offensive. He might have actually offended my sensibilities, and I could have jumped up on a point of order — not during Question Period, because, if you know procedure, colleagues, you are not allowed to stand up on a point of order during Question Period and routine business. That is the tradition in this place.

There are two issues just on the Rules: number one, there is no prescriptive language in this chamber that is not parliamentary; and number two, there is no history of the Speaker having the authority to exercise and remediate what the chair might deem to be unacceptable. Having said that, because I have had the privilege to serve in that chair, the chair has the leeway to make sure there is order and decorum in the chamber and, of course, our Speaker has done an excellent job of that.

The language that is being called to question on this point of order is language that I’ve been using consistently during Question Period for a number of months, to be honest with you. I think it is consistent and applies to this government and this Prime Minister. I think it is grossly unfair, given the leeway and benevolence that the Speaker has shown in allowing me to use that language for such a short period of time, if, suddenly, he would find it offensive because someone’s sensibilities were tested more than usual. Those are some of the points that I wanted to share with the chamber.

Again, I call upon all of us to understand that this is a house of parliament, and we sometimes engage on very controversial and contentious issues. In the heat of debate, on legislation or in Question Period or at committee — even sometimes with our best friends — we will sometimes feel that somebody crossed the line when it came to addressing us or the issues that we believe in.

I’m sure His Honour will take this under advisement and come back with a sage ruling, and I will, of course, acquiesce to that final ruling. Thank you.

Colleagues, I will hear from one more senator. Senator Moncion was standing earlier. I will have heard enough by then, but, if not, I will call upon you, Senator Carignan.

Again, I will ask you to keep your comments, Senator Moncion, to the interpretation of rule 6-13.

Senator Carignan, I know you are anxious to make a comment, but we have spent a considerable amount of the chamber’s time on this issue. I will allow you a couple of minutes to make further comments, but please keep it to a couple of minutes.

I would like to clarify something. Senator Moncion just raised another point. My understanding is that the point of order raised by Senator Downe was really about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s comments more directly. There seems to be some confusion. That said, obviously —

To clarify, Senator Moncion was speaking about what would have been her point of order, but we are only dealing with the point of order raised by Senator Downe.

As an aside, when I was told that the leader had called the Prime Minister a “liar,” I heard the word “lawyer.” I was a little surprised, knowing that he is a drama teacher.

That said, as you know, Your Honour, there is no list of unparliamentary language in the Senate. There is no list of unparliamentary language in our procedural literature, and the word “lie” does not appear on any such list, because there is none.

I would like to quote a decision by Speaker Kinsella on December 16, 2011, as recorded in the Journals of the Senate on pages 798 and 799, which reads as follows:

More generally, rule 51 prohibits all “personal, sharp or taxing” language as unparliamentary. There is no definitive list of such words or expressions in the Senate. Determination of what constitutes unparliamentary language is left primarily to the judgment of the Speaker and the sense of the Senate.

I draw your attention to the following words: ‘‘[t]he circumstances and tone of the debate in question play important roles in this determination’’.

I’m drawing your attention to those words because that is what Senator Plett wanted to underscore by putting into context the words he used.

You should also consider rule 6-13(1) in the Speaker’s ruling of October 2, 2012, found in the Senate Journals on page 1586. A number of senators, including Senators Comeau, Cowan, Downe and Duffy, discussed the comments made by Senator Wallin during a debate on harassment in the RCMP. Speaker Kinsella stated the following:

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right necessary for the performance of our duties as parliamentarians. This right, as described in the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 89-90, permits members ‘‘...to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest...’’. However, this right is not absolute. It is ‘‘[s]ubject . . . .

However, since there is no set list of expressions and we have the right to freedom of expression as parliamentarians, we should be able to raise these questions using the words that we feel are appropriate.

I will stop there. I could give many more examples, including the 2,568 court rulings in Quebec that used the word “liar,” but I don’t think that will be necessary.

Thank you, honourable senators. I’ve heard enough. I would like to give you more time, senator, but everything I’m hearing now is repetitive. I think I’ve heard enough to make a determination. My apologies, senator, for not allowing you to speak now, but we have chewed up a considerable amount of the chamber’s time on this issue. I’m prepared to take it under advisement. Thank you to those who provided their input, and thank you, Senator Downe, for raising the point.