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.

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.

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.

Thank you, Senator Downe, for raising the point of order on that day, because we had an issue with some of the comments made that afternoon. I would refer to the comment that, if Senator Downe had not raised that point of order, I would have. I will quote exactly what was said, Your Honour, so that we are not misled by another conversation and end up with two points of order on the same day. I understand the Rules that when there is a point of order you cannot make another, but I will provide the information.

Senator Plett said:

Leader, the Trudeau government has sold themselves to the NDP and stopped even pretending to care about fiscal restraint. There are names for people who sell themselves. I’m not sure whether it’s parliamentary language or not, so I will refrain from using it.

Leader, there are no lines that the NDP-Trudeau government won’t cross, no fiscal guardrails and no anchors. What’s left?

This was the offending comment that, in my view, was disturbing.

Now, there are two things that have been said so far. We have to understand that we have to be careful around sensibilities, because our sensibilities are our own. When we don’t like comments we usually keep it to ourselves, but the other one is respect. I think here there is a lack of respect for people who work for this country, and I think it is important at some point to be respectful of the work that people do — whether we agree with them or not.

We have a minimum of decorum to keep here, and I think that’s important. As to my point of order, I would refer you to the exact information that is in Hansard. Thank you, Your Honour, for allowing me the time to speak.

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.