Thank you for sharing the section in regard to taxing language, which we have all heard in this chamber on a number of occasions. To be clear, under no circumstances has this chamber ever had a list of unparliamentary language unlike the House of Commons. It is always at the discretion of this chamber.

Yes, you are not allowed to use taxing language in attacks or in debate. Under no circumstances does Senator Plett use any taxing language to insult any member of this chamber. Under no circumstances were words used by Senator Plett that in any way, shape or form called into question the integrity of anybody who participated in the debate.

What he did was read into the record a quotation of an editorial written in a legitimate news outlet. He addressed issues in regard to the current Prime Minister of Canada and how that Prime Minister comports himself. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think it is a little bit of a stretch that every single time we hear disparaging language about the behaviour of this Prime Minister, which is being used in the media on a regular basis, that somehow we call it unparliamentary language.

I think we stretch that rule and we take it to a level that I think is inappropriate based on the purpose of the rule, the essence of the rule and how debate has been conducted here through the years.

Because Senator Housakos has risen on a point of order, I am going to take the liberty of adding a view for your consideration, Your Honour.

I believe the Hansard will show clearly the words that Senator Plett said. I believe he was not quoting from an editorial with regard to the remarks to which I objected. I believe he called the Prime Minister a liar. That was not a quotation. I believe he called — and I stand corrected if I’m wrong, but I believe that he also attributed that to the Deputy Prime Minister.

I do believe that Hansard will show that Senator Plett acknowledged before he made those statements that he was not to call the Prime Minister a liar in this chamber. If I recall, I prefaced my requests for an apology, which I did not receive or for you to consider it, with that reference.

I will take another opportunity, perhaps, to speak to the Speech from the Throne to talk about civility and decorum and what I believe is the appropriate way to have serious political debate in this chamber. Frankly, I bemoan the tone that has crept into this chamber over the last while. I think it is dishonourable behaviour. It discredits this institution, but I digress.

I believe Hansard will show that Senator Plett was not quoting from an editorial or a newspaper, but was saying something which, in my humble, respectful opinion, is unparliamentary. I would ask you to take my remarks into consideration when you rule in this matter.

Senator Plett?

One last —

Your Honour, I wish to return to my point of order which has to do with the word “lying.”

Senator Gold, it is unfortunate that you think that this place is creeping into a place that is not polite and so on and so forth and that we are challenging your sensibilities and attacking, in a pointed way, your Prime Minister, but that is not the debate here.

For me, it is simple, Your Honour, when somebody says untruths, we call them out on the chamber floor and we call them a liar or if somebody, for example, is doing something that is unscrupulous and we call it crooked, for example, those words are not listed anywhere in the Rules as being unparliamentary language in this chamber.

There has been a very wide interpretation of what is considered taxing language by previous Speakers throughout the years. We apply that rule when it comes to debate and behaviour between colleagues in this chamber. But when we are here to address things that are happening in public policy in the other place, at the executive level or in any other sector in society, I think there is a broad, flexible range of language that we are allowed to use that is applicable to certain behaviour.

When somebody behaves in a way where they say untruths, we call them liars. That is the point of order. I do not believe we have a list of unparliamentary language in this chamber as they have in the House. I think we have to apply the rules according to that premise.

To intervene quickly, I apologize to the chamber. I think I caused this discussion.

I was simply asking Senator Plett a question as to whether his strategy was effective. I wish to apologize to colleagues. I thought it was a reasonable question.

Thank you for bringing up this important question. I will certainly take this under advisement.