Honourable senators, it is with a mix of sadness and hope that I rise today to speak on the Trudeau government’s Motion No. 165 to change the Rules of the Senate.

I am sad because I think some of the changes brought forward by this motion are detrimental to the Senate and the Canadian democratic system, and I am sad because the precedent created by Senator Gold with his motion marks the end of a Senate that was functioning in some ways outside of partisanship that we now see in the House. I will elaborate on this in a moment.

As I said, I’m also hopeful because I think this is the last act in this lousy drama of Justin Trudeau’s attempt to reform the Senate. Let’s be clear: This is Justin Trudeau’s attempt. The end is near for this government, and Pierre Poilievre will soon be given the mandate to repair this broken country. One of the things that Justin Trudeau broke and that Pierre Poilievre will have to repair is the Senate of Canada.

Contrary to what Senator Gold and the Liberals would like us to believe, Justin Trudeau did not come up, in 2014, with an elaborate plan to throw the Canadian Senate into the 21st century. His plan was done on a napkin out of political expediency and under pressure to come up with a gambit that would protect him from going down with half of his caucus.

The vast majority of you were not here in 2013 when the Senate had to deal with some senators having dubious expenses, but let me briefly explain to you what happened. For those senators who were here, this will help refresh your memory.

Four senators were named in the media for having questionable expenses. One of them was a Liberal, who quickly decided to retire. When the Conservative government decided to act and suspend the three other senators, Justin Trudeau instructed his Liberal senators to abstain on that vote. Half of the caucus did not follow his orders.

Trudeau was furious. He sent Dominic LeBlanc, his trusted henchman, to organize a coup in the Senate Liberal caucus. George Furey was to replace Jim Cowan as leader. That failed.

That made Trudeau even angrier. He knew that the Auditor General inquiry would show more of his Liberal senators having questionable expenses. So he decided to throw them out of the caucus, to send them into exile. That was done unceremoniously. Senators Jaffer, Cordy, Ringuette, Downe or Massicotte could all tell you more about this meeting on a cold Wednesday morning in January 2014 when Liberal senators learned who the real Justin Trudeau is. Those senators who had worked tirelessly for the Liberal Party were discarded like nothings, thrown to the wayside by Justin Trudeau on his way to power.

It was after they decided to throw out their senators from caucus that the Liberals came up with a plan to change the Senate without really changing it. The idea that being part of a national caucus made the Liberal senators less independent is a sham. The Liberal senators that were here when I came, such as those I mentioned, and further — Cowan, Joyal, Baker and Fraser — all of them were strong and independent thinkers. In fact, as I just said, it is because they did not follow Justin Trudeau and because they were independent thinkers that they were tossed aside.

There were two objectives to the plan that Trudeau concocted in 2014.

One, they had to cut the ties with those senators who could become an embarrassment at any time. The Liberals saw their Senate colleagues as toxic time bombs that they had to run away from. For Trudeau, his image was sacrosanct. It was out of the question that any senator — as good and loyal as they may be — would stain his reputation.

Second, the Liberals, being in third place, had to put something in the window as far as Senate reform was concerned. The Harper plan to have term limits and Senate elections was still out there, although it was being restrained by the courts. The second place NDP plan was simpler: just abolish the institution.

To distinguish themselves, the Liberals came up with this idea of a committee of Liberals — remember, a committee of Liberals — that would appoint Liberals in the Senate who would then call themselves independent. The Liberals would also ask the Leader of the Government to style himself as a representative, even if he was the Leader of the Government.

You have to admire the Liberals for this. They were able to sell immobility as progress. Senate reform was suddenly simple: all you have to do is change titles, call a leader a representative, a whip a liaison and a Liberal an independent, and ta-dah! You have a new Senate.

Colleagues, fast-forward to 2024. Sensing that Trudeau’s time is up, the government has decided to rush in this motion to change the Rules. In their ninth year in power, the Liberals have decided to prepare their exit and change the Senate for good — or so they hope. That is a wooden one.

What took them so long? I know that Senator Gold will accuse the Conservatives of having stalled all those magnificent changes Justin Trudeau was supposed to bring to this place. Sorry, colleagues, that’s the wrong answer.

The problem was what I outlined: these changes were not well‑thought-out. They were just a couple of slogans for the 2015 election that Trudeau was never supposed to win.

The government had no clue what to do with the Senate. It took them five months to decide that they needed a leader in the Senate. Yes, senators, the Senate sat for five months without the government being represented. The new senators — the Liberals appointed in 2016 — had no idea what to do: sit all by themselves or create groups? But then, how can you be in a group and be an independent? Somebody found a way.

We saw the birth of strange notions like leaders who don’t lead, liaisons who liaise with who knows who and facilitators who facilitate who knows what. Of course, all of this is just a masquerade. Colleagues, calling your cat a feline does not make you a lion tamer.

Meanwhile, Conservative and Liberal senators all patiently waited for the government and the new senators to come up with their plans. To no one’s surprise, the independent senators decided to replicate the model that exists in all Westminster parliaments and formed groups. Sir John A. Macdonald’s prediction that this place could not function with 105 loose fish came true, once again. The majority of senators, still affiliated to a political party, agreed to the demands of those new senators and made the necessary changes to the Rules — without any resistance, I might add. As Senator Gold pointed out in his speech:

 . . . the Rules of the Senate were adjusted to allow for the participation of these groups, or sessional orders were put in place so that new senators could be included.

Listening to Senator Gold, you would think that the Trudeau senators had to fight with Conservatives and Liberals for every inch. Nothing, colleagues, is further from the truth.

The Conservative opposition has not resisted the vast majority of the changes to the Rules, to the Parliament of Canada Act or the way we conduct our business. We know that elections have consequences. We know that by appointing 81 senators — as many as Wilfrid Laurier did — Justin Trudeau has put his mark on the Senate.

But we have been very clear: We will not accept the reduction of the powers of the opposition. And we will not accept changes that will restrict a new Conservative government that will very shortly be in place to be able to properly conduct its business in the Senate. That has been — and remains — our red line.

Again, I will come back later to the impact of the changes pushed by Senator Gold on the opposition and on a future Conservative government. But first, I want to address what I think is the most egregious aspect of this move from the government.

To use a government motion to change the Rules without any agreement or even meaningful discussions with opposition is, as far as I know, unprecedented. When I asked Senator Gold about this, he could not point to one previous instance where the government had moved unilaterally to change the Rules of the Senate.

Please, Senator Gold, spare us with your argument that you tabling a motion is not a unilateral move by the government. Justin Trudeau has appointed 81 senators. There are only 13 senators in the opposition out of 96. Yes, using the powers of the government to ram such a motion down the throat of the opposition is unprecedented and I would suggest undemocratic especially when it is done under the threat of imminent closure — a motion that we now have hanging over our heads and have already been threatened with.

Senators will know that the regular process to change the Rules of the Senate is to go through a study and then a report from the Rules Committee, where consensus has always been the policy. It has always been accepted that to change the rules of the game you need to discuss with all players, have their input and have a consensus. No more so. Senator Gold will go down in history as the Leader of the Government who broke this model that has been in effect since 1867. He is the first to do what is now routinely done in the House of Commons: using the government majority to change the rules. You will note the cynicism of the government here. They are using the most partisan tactic ever used to change the rules to make this place less partisan, or so they pretend.

Senator Gold has opened a Pandora’s box. A page has been turned. I will make a prediction: Now that the genie is out of the bottle, future government leaders will use this precedent to justify the use of government powers to change the rules. In a few years, when the Conservatives regain the majority in the Senate, they will be able to change the rules as they see fit. More or less, 50% of all of you — and I — will not be around. Some 50% will not be; 50% will still be around. For those of you who will sit on the opposition benches, I think you will look back to our current debate and say, “Plett warned us.” Trust me: The Conservative government will do what you are, ahead of time, telling them that they can do.

Frankly, I do not understand why the government did not use the method in place since Confederation to change the rules. What was good under Wilfrid Laurier, under Lester B. Pearson and under Brian Mulroney is no longer useful under Justin Trudeau.

The Conservative opposition has 4 seats out of 15 on the Rules Committee — 4 out of 15. The four other groups who support the government’s general policies, including the budget, share 11 seats. Why does the government need to use a government motion to ram these changes through the Senate? Why did Senator Gold not first table his changes at the Rules Committee? Maybe he doesn’t trust his 11 allies on the Rules Committee. I don’t know. In any event, this is a slap in the face to the Rules Committee and its chair, and I hope the chair takes note.

By moving a motion, the government is skipping the committee process. We will not hear expert witnesses who could tell us what they think about these changes. We will not be able to debate each change, to carefully review the text, to wordsmith each and every new rule. What the Senate is so proud of — and for so many years has been known for — is its committee work, its ability to do a deep dive. The government has decided that we don’t need that for our very own rules.

That is why the government is using a government motion, so that senators cannot hear experts who would be against the proposal, cannot carefully study the changes and tweak them if necessary. The government, as Senator Housakos just pointed out, knows better. It has all the answers already; who cares what other senators think?

It is true that some of the ideas we find in the motion have already been discussed, and there was consensus on several of the notions. But the government senators presented this as a take‑all-or-nothing package. Senator Quinn asked today if Senator Gold would consider one simple amendment. He refused to answer. It’s his motion. He didn’t ask what the rest of the Senate would do. He asked Senator Gold, “Would you be prepared to accept a simple amendment?” Senator Gold refused to answer the question.

Like I said, it is true that some of the ideas we find in the motion have already been discussed, but government senators presented this as a take-all-or-nothing package. This is when Senator Bellemare and the Rules Committee decided not to present a report. It was their decision, not the Conservatives’.

The government has decided to act unilaterally, in frustration, as Senator Gold admitted in his speech. Instead of doing his job as a consensus builder, which he should be, he is throwing Senator Bellemare under the bus and bullying the opposition. Let’s not kid ourselves here: These changes are a fait accompli.

Senator Gold admitted in his speech that there was no place for discussion. Justin Trudeau wants those changes, and what Justin Trudeau wants, his senators have to deliver. The objective of this motion is to create a second government caucus — or a second opposition caucus, depending on who is in power — and Senator Gold admitted that this is part of the DNA of this motion. What is left to negotiate for the Conservatives if turning the Senate into a Liberal echo chamber is the ultimate objective and the government will use any means to do it, including closure of debate?

Now that the Liberal Party is down by 20 points in the polls, and now that the Trudeau senators are looking at the prospect of sitting in opposition for a very long time, they are changing the rules, and they will use time allocation to make sure that the debate is cut short. After all, we need to act fast to get rid of these time-wasting procedures, which is what Senator Lankin called them.

Lastly, on this topic of the unprecedented use of a government motion to change the rules, I’m not sure what to make of the waffling by Senator Gold regarding whose idea these changes actually were. He was asked. He would not answer whether the Prime Minister supports these changes. He said in his speech:

This is an initiative of the Government Representative Office in the Senate. It is not an initiative of the Prime Minister’s Office, period.

Those are Senator Gold’s words.

Well, then, what is government business in the Rules of the Senate? You have to ask this question. It is not a personal idea from a member of the government. It is not an initiative from an office somewhere in this building. It is the business of the government. If Senator Gold wants us to believe that this motion is not a motion from the Justin Trudeau Liberal government, then he should not use a government motion to advance it.

Exactly.

I will trust that Senator Gold is not trying to pull a fast one on all of us, that he is not using the tools of the government to advance his own personal agenda. We should stop fooling around; this government motion is 100% supported by the government, by Justin Trudeau, the Liberals, and probably Jagmeet Singh.

He wants to abolish the Senate.

The Liberal Party and its supporters here and in the House will have to pay a political price, now and in the future, for these changes and the way they are being pushed.

The second thing that I have an issue with is the timing of this motion. As I said, there is a smell of desperation in Senator Gold’s move. The Trudeau government has had a majority in the Senate for seven years or so. All those years, even before it had a majority, the government was able to pass its legislation. In fact, thanks to the fact that he had 23 open seats to fill when he was elected, Justin Trudeau was able to get a majority in the Senate very quickly. When you compare him with Laurier, Borden or Mulroney, who had to fight for years against a Senate majority from the opposite side, Justin Trudeau is lucky.

Why are these changes so urgent? We all know the answer. Changing the Rules of the Senate has become urgent since Pierre Poilievre opened a 20-point lead in the polls. Senator Gold is now desperate to entrench in the Senate, before the election, this ridiculous structure that Justin Trudeau has created because he knows the Liberals will be wiped out, likely back to third party status again.

As I will explain later, this motion puts the Independent Senators Group, or its successor, in the position to be the ballast in the Senate, throwing its weight on whatever side the Liberals will be — now in power, tomorrow in opposition. This way, the Liberals are making sure that for a few years at least, the Senate will tilt in their favour. They say they want to get rid of the duopoly in the Senate. They are replacing it with a triumvirate, where they control two of the three actors.

Let’s talk about the role of the opposition. Let me turn to an important consideration in this debate.

It is clear that some of the Trudeau senators have a problem with having a robust opposition in the Senate. We use words such as “liar,” “incompetent” or “corrupt” to truthfully describe their favourite prime minister. We use procedural tactics. We are wasting time. We ask too many questions. Some of these questions touch topics that they are very uncomfortable with. This shows not only a poor understanding of the democratic process by these senators, but also a lack of knowledge about the history of the Senate. You don’t have to go back very far in history to find oppositions in the Senate which were way more obstructionist than we have ever been in the last nine years.

Colleagues, sorry to cause all that pearl-clutching, but we are simply doing our job. We play a role as important as the role that the government and its supporters play.

I will repeat it over and over: The Senate needs an organized opposition that has the necessary tools to do its job.

Let me quote former prime minister Wilfrid Laurier:

. . . it is indeed essential for the country that the shades of opinion which are represented on both sides of this House should be placed as far as possible on a footing of equality and that we should have a strong opposition to voice the views of those who do not think with the majority.

You will note that Prime Minister Laurier insisted on the fact that government and opposition should be as equal as possible.

And what is the role of the opposition? Of course, it is to keep the government’s proverbial feet to the fire, and to challenge the government on behalf of Canadians.

Let me again quote a former prime minister; this time, it’s John G. Diefenbaker:

If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the Cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent over-expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and molds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize every action by the government and in doing so prevents the short-cuts through democratic procedure that governments like to make.

Of course, when doing its job, the opposition will ruffle the feathers of those in government. This is at the heart of the democratic process. One may feel that the opposition is going too far, that it uses sharp language, and that it is wasting time. Well, there are rules to stop that if that is the case. As long as the opposition is following the Rules, the government and its supporters should and, indeed, have to accept the fact that this is part of our democratic process.

Let me quote a third prime minister; it’s Lester B. Pearson:

In national politics during the years when I was in the government, I watched the Opposition perform their duty vigorously and industriously, with courage and determination. They rightly insisted on their right to oppose, attack and criticize, to engage in that cut and thrust of debate, so often and so strongly recommended by those concerned with the vigour and health of Parliament and the health of democracy. I cannot forbear to add, however, that the application of this procedure has, in the past, been occasionally resented by those who are cut and thrust at.

As for the accusation that the opposition is wasting time — slowing things up — I will admit it is true. Not only is it part of the arsenal of the opposition, but it is also the most effective tool that we have. When introducing a measure in the Senate, the government has only one objective: to get it out of here as fast as possible. That’s even before it is introduced in the Senate. It is already Senator Gold’s objective. This has become an obsession for Senator Gold. That is why we are rushed to pass bills that then stay in the House for months, if not years.

But time is important for the opposition: It allows it to keep the debate in the public eye. It allows it to alert stakeholders. It allows it to show that there could be a better way to do things — to present itself as the government in waiting.

This does not mean that the opposition must drag its feet and turn the chamber into a battlefield on all questions. The opposition must be careful in using its procedural tools. It must maintain a balance between compromise and obstruction, co‑option and reflex opposition. But the opposition has the right, as it should, to use all necessary means — within the bounds of the Rules — to stop what it considers to be measures detrimental to Canada.

And in the end, the government, especially when it has a majority like in the current Senate, will be able to go forward. As the saying goes, “The opposition has its day; the government has its way.”

Senators should know that since 2015, even before there was a Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Conservative opposition has been able to negotiate reasonable timetables on moving government legislation. We understand very well our role in Parliament. When Senator Gold accuses us of stalling, delaying or filibustering legislation, he is recycling for the Senate the talking points that the Prime Minister’s Office prepared for his House colleagues. If some senators are interested in learning what an obstructionist opposition is, they can look at Hansard from when the Conservatives were in government and the Liberals had a majority in the Senate. The debate on the GST comes to mind.

I cannot fail to note that when the government and its senators say they want to make the Senate more efficient, they are not talking about running the place better, at a lesser cost. When they say that, what they are looking for is to cut the opposition’s ability to use time. They want to cut debate, and stop the time‑wasting, as Senator Lankin said. But efficiency is not what the government is looking for; it is expediency. The government — any government, in fact — wants to move fast. It wants to get to business. But rushing legislation is not what the Senate is for.

As author Gerald Schmitz said:

Parliament exists not only to transact the business of state, but to provide a forum in which all legitimate points of view can be expressed. The government has a right and duty to govern. The opposition’s right and duty, if it believes the public interest is at stake, is to oppose the government’s policies and actions by every legitimate parliamentary means. . . .

I invite senators who have trouble with a Conservative opposition in the Senate to consider the alternative. If the point of view of close to 80% of Canadians who do not support the Trudeau Liberals is not expressed here, then what is the point of the Senate? This 80% will ask the question: Why are we paying $130 million per year for an institution that simply parrots Trudeau government lines? Why not just abolish it? I have no argument against that. Sometimes I wonder if it wasn’t Justin Trudeau’s secret plan to get rid of the Senate: make it so irrelevant that abolishing it would just be a cost-saving measure that barely anyone would notice.

For now, at least, you can count on the Conservative senators to spice up debate, but imagine what it would be to only have Trudeau supporters here debating how great his policies are. That $130 million price tag would look horrific, wouldn’t it?

Finally, I want to point out an additional fact about the opposition in the Senate. The opposition caucus must have ties to a political party just like the government caucus needs to have ties to the party in power. These ties can be loose. They can just be the membership of senators to the party — like the Liberals had in 2014-15 — but there must be ties for two reasons.

First, to call yourself the opposition of the government, you must not only oppose it from time to time on specific issues but you must also want to take the place of the government. Every day, the opposition is trying to convince the electorate that it should change places with the government. This role is fundamental in our system.

As the distinguished Canadian parliamentarian Stanley Knowles put it:

. . . the opposition should so conduct itself in Parliament as to persuade the people of the country that it could be an improvement on the government of the day. . . .

Only a group tied to a party that wants to replace the government can play the role of the opposition in the Senate. That is why our Rules are written this way. Having ties to a political party also gives the government and the opposition additional legitimacy. As Senator Gold himself said in his speech:

The point that the opposition is trying to make is one worth taking seriously. If one purports to speak for the government, there should be a link to the government because I represent a government that was elected and represents.

The Conservative senators stand up and say, “We speak for 6 million” — whatever the number of Canadians who voted for them was — and they are right to say that because there is a link there. When they say, “I speak for Canadians,” they represent a party that does.

This is another reason why putting the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, on the same footing as the opposition — now the Conservatives, tomorrow the Liberals or the NDP — is wrong.

Let me go back to the motion in front of us. It contains three types of changes to the Rules.

The first type of change is the introduction of all those new and phony terms that the government is so enamoured with. My reaction to those changes is, “Why?” If Senator Gold wants to style himself as representative, special agent, enforcer, negotiator, beggar-in-chief or Grand Poobah, that is his privilege.

He is and will remain the Leader of the Government in the Senate, period, by law — no matter how he is dressed, combed or styled. To change the Rules to satisfy this strange need to come up with new vocabulary to describe the same reality is, frankly, ridiculous.

Second, there are changes to some specific provisions, such as the evening suspension or Order Paper questions. Although I don’t support those changes, I acknowledge that they may have some merit. They are certainly worth being looked at carefully and debated. I regret that the government has refused to give the opportunity to the Rules Committee to look at these changes, and especially that we will not be able to reflect on the unintended consequences.

In fact, I almost fell off my chair when I saw that the Rules Committee has a meeting scheduled for May 7 to study — guess what? — delayed answers and responses to written questions. Mind-boggling. I’m not sure what to make of this. Are we having two competing debates? In any event, I believe it shows that Senator Gold is clearly rushing things and somebody doesn’t know what they’re doing.

Finally, the government has decided to put the ISG on the same level as the government and the opposition and to give the Canadian Senators Group, or CSG, and the Progressive Senate Group, or PSG, some symbolic powers. Somehow, they are falling all over themselves wanting to vote for this too — at least their leaders are — when they get nothing.

As Senator Gold said in his speech:

. . . That is the centrepiece of this initiative, its raison d’être, its DNA. It is like the object of a bill. Certain things cannot be given up, if I can use the analogy, without destroying the bill. It would be out of order in that situation were this a piece of legislation.

This is where I have a big problem with this motion. By putting the ISG on the same footing as the government and opposition, this motion creates an imbalance in the Senate. Remember, the Westminster model is based on the fact that there is a balance between the rights and privileges of the government and the rights and privileges of the opposition. So first, by giving some of the privilege of the opposition to other groups, the motion dilutes the powers of the opposition. A right that is held by a few is a privilege. A right that is held by all is just that, a right.

But the government’s move is more devious than just attacking the opposition. By creating a third force with the same powers and privileges, this motion creates either a second government group or a second opposition group. The third group will either support the general policy objectives of the government or it will not. If it supports them, it is with the government. If it opposes them, it is in the opposition.

The change in the Rules allows the Trudeau government to count on two groups to help it steer the Senate — the Government Representative Office, or GRO, and the ISG. Out of the 41 members of the ISG, 38 were appointed by Justin Trudeau and 3 were appointed by Jean Chrétien. Now, we all know they will faithfully continue to support the Liberals until the end of their mandate, as they have done until now.

As Senator Gold once said in an ISG caucus meeting, “Remember who appointed you.” This was Senator Gold in an ISG caucus meeting, a group meeting. Until the next election, Senator Saint-Germain will be the de facto second Leader of the Government without having the obligation to answer during Question Period. Surprising how we know things that you said that weren’t supposed to be public.

My gut tells me that a vast majority of the Trudeau-appointed senators will remember who appointed them long after he resigns or is kicked out by Canadians. They will defend his legacy against the changes that Pierre Poilievre will bring. We will see the comeback of the Liberal caucus in the Senate, which will be the official opposition. They may even be invited to join the national Liberal caucus, which, no doubt, will be at a very low number by then.

I think they could kick the other guys out. And I am certain that the ISG will remain standing, maybe under a new name. Who knows? Names change here. They will not support Pierre Poilievre’s policies. They will be a second opposition in the Senate of Canada. The changes to the Rules that Motion No. 165 will bring are giving them the tools to do that.

This second opposition will be able to maneuver without any practical political restraint. The new Liberal leader will not have to answer for their behaviour. No Liberal MP will pay a political price if they stall or defeat a bill. They will be able to take unpopular stances, defend Trudeau’s ideas — even against the new Liberal leader — and will not be accountable to anyone. This group will stay in ambush in the Senate, ready to move against Pierre Poilievre’s legislative agenda.

Colleagues, I am sure most of you think I am exaggerating. Well, to be frank, I hope I am. I hope I am wrong. And I hope that after the election, you will accept the will of the Canadian people and will not stall any bill that is sent over here by the elected house, the Conservative Party of Canada. But I fear that history will repeat itself and that the Justin Trudeau-appointed senators will act just like the Pierre Elliott Trudeau-appointed senators acted between 1984 and 1991 and will put as many roadblocks on Pierre Poilievre’s path as their predecessors did for Brian Mulroney.

Now, let me go through the details of the motion and what those changes mean for the Senate.

As I said earlier, by circumventing the regular process of having the new rules studied one by one at committee, Senator Gold is robbing us of the chance to measure carefully the impact of the changes. This is sad because there will be unintended consequences to having these new rules. Those of you who will still be in this place in three or five years will realize that you were duped.

First, Senator Gold has decided to reduce the evening suspension by one hour and to have it from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. Why he chose this instead of 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., we will never know, since he decided to skip the regular process.

As senators would know, the evening suspension is often used for those of us who have organized caucuses to hold caucus meetings to discuss strategy for the evening. In fact, Senator Gold circulated in March a “rationale” on changes to Rules that allowed whips to ask for an extension of the evening suspension to allow for caucus meetings. This is not in the motion. Why? We don’t know. Maybe the government does not want senators to be able to discuss how they can oppose legislation. It makes their job easier.

Also, the evening suspension is a good time for senators to meet with stakeholders. I have stakeholders asking me many times, “Senator, what day can we have a meeting?” Now, I can almost always say, “For sure, I can meet you on a Tuesday from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. or possibly on a Thursday from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.” Because I know that is when that time will be available. For those of us who are here working hard, that is the only free time in a day filled with committees and chamber attendance. Maybe the government is happy with the fact that senators will have less time to meet with stakeholders. Again, it will make their job easier.

I know I am old school on this issue, but, for me, the evening suspension is an integral part of the “sober second thought” aspect of the Senate. All senators are expected to attend all sittings and stay throughout the debates, but we don’t. On Thursday afternoons and Thursday evenings, colleagues, it is shameful. When I look at this chamber on a Thursday at six o’clock, people are leaving in all directions for their airplanes that will be leaving in half an hour.

We were appointed to this chamber to work. We are paid good money by Canadian taxpayers to be here and do our work. I see this as a reason for us to be able to get out of here no later than seven o’clock in the evening. All senators are expected to attend all sittings and stay throughout all the debates. That is why we do not have exceptional circumstances; that is why we do not agree to having committee meetings while the Senate sits. Yet, we are being asked to do so constantly. No. That’s the time when we’re supposed to be in here.

To have a break after a long day to allow senators to prepare for an evening of debates does not seem to be, in my opinion, again — Senator Lankin’s words — a waste of time. Maybe the government does not want senators to be prepared. Maybe the government does not have all those bad intentions, but other than allowing senators to go to bed earlier, what will this actually accomplish?

How many times in the last five years, colleagues, do you remember that the Senate failed to go through the Order Paper before midnight because of an evening suspension? It could happen tonight.

With this measure, the Senate will not accomplish more. It will sit shorter hours. Reducing the evening suspension to one hour does not reduce time wasting, as Senator Lankin said, it just reduces the time spent on Senate business by senators. Let’s at least be honest about that, colleagues.

The second issue the motion seeks to address is the issue of delayed answers and Order Paper questions.

You will note that the Liberals are coming up with these changes after more than eight years in power. They were content with not answering questions while they were in power, but on the eve of them returning to the opposition benches, they now push for the creation of an obligation for the government to answer questions. There has been no desire to do that until now. I haven’t received an answer from Senator Gold in I don’t know how long. Guess what: They did not need to change Rules to answer questions. All they need to do is have the will to answer questions.

The government is giving itself an additional eight months to answer questions that are already on the Order Paper. Obviously, Senator Gold thinks that the Trudeau government is a hopeless case as far as transparency is concerned and that it will be up to a Poilievre government to properly respect the Senate and provide answers in a timely fashion.

In section 5 of this motion, Senator Gold is giving the right to the government to crawl out of the obligation to provide an answer by simply tabling an explanation of why an answer cannot be provided. Why should the Senate allow this? The government does not have the right to do this in the House of Commons, and it does not have it in the Access to Information Act. Why should senators be treated differently than members of the House of Commons? Why is it that in Justin Trudeau’s Senate, “I can’t answer” is considered to be an answer under these new rules?

Speaking of being treated differently than the House of Commons, the government has 45 days to answer their questions but would have 60 days to answer ours. Why is that, Senator Gold? Are our questions more difficult to answer?

Must be. Are they less important?

Senator Gold has tried to explain that it is because the government has to provide delayed answers in the Senate. Well, I have two objections to this. First, the government does not have the obligation to promise delayed answers; it is its choice. To make this an excuse for a longer delay in answering does not hold water. Second, why would having to provide delayed answers justify taking longer to answer a written question? Aren’t there enough bureaucrats to answer our questions? What have we increased our bureaucracy by in the last eight years?

Does the government figure that it will be flooded with questions?

Let’s be serious. There is no valid reason for having a longer delay than what they have in the House of Commons. Again, Senator Quinn asked the question, and Senator Gold refused to answer it: “Would you accept an amendment?” You will have your opportunity. It will be there.

Also, Senator Gold’s motion limits the senators’ questions to four questions. Why that number? Why not five or six?

Finally, on this issue, I have 92 questions on the Order Paper as of today — well, this is outdated by an hour because I got some answers today. For the sake of simplicity, I have almost 92 questions on the Order Paper as of today. Some of these questions have been on the docket since November 2021.

Senator Gold’s motion has a transitionary measure for those questions. As I said, the government is giving itself an additional six months before the 60-day delay starts. I have been waiting 30 months for some answers, and now the government wants an additional eight months and will probably give me an answer like, “We can’t answer this.” This is not serious. This is a joke, Senator Gold, a joke.

Once again, Senator Gold pretends he is doing something but is, in fact, doing the opposite. He pretends that his motion would help senators get more timely answers out of their questions. This is not true. The government will have the ability to just provide a non-answer to forgo its obligation. The government is giving itself eight months to answer questions that have been already filed — some of them for more than 30 months.

Finally, the motion puts a hard cap on the number of questions a senator can ask. Shameful! This is democracy?

Colleagues, this is not the gift to senators that Senator Gold pretends it is. I am certain that in a few years, some of you will deeply regret these changes.

Let’s move to another issue: time limits for speakers. In section 7 of his motion, Senator Gold is giving the leader of the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, unlimited time to speak. Why is it necessary to give a third leader unlimited time?

In the House of Commons, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the third party, does not have unlimited time. I suspect this will allow the leader of the ISG to play the role of substitute Leader of the Government or substitute Leader of the Opposition, as I outlined already. As long as the Liberals are in power, two leaders supporting the government will have this privilege.

As soon as the Conservatives are in power, two leaders opposing the government will have unlimited time to speak. While Senator Gold has explained that this is done for reasons of fairness, we are not naive, Senator Gold. This change seeks to give the Liberals a double-barrelled shotgun to shoot at Conservatives — figuratively speaking, of course. That is why this privilege is not extended to other leaders.

Senator Gold was happy to note in his speech, “For other leaders and facilitators, speaking time would be extended to 45 minutes.”

The problem is that under rule 6-3(1)(a) of the Rules, they already have 45 minutes of speaking time. Thanks, Senator Gold. He’s given it to you twice. On this matter, Senator Gold’s motion is advantaging the leader of the ISG and no one else. Progressive Senate Group, or PSG, and Canadian Senators Group, or CSG, take note — you’re being thrown under the bus along with us.

In section 9 of this motion, Senator Gold is reducing by one third the speaking time of the Leader of the Opposition on its time allocation motion. Time allocation — he’s taking away our right to speak to it. Such a motion is probably the most drastic procedural manœuvre the government can make in the Senate.

It is, of course, a straitjacket put on the opposition when it is slowing things down during debate on a government matter, which — as I said — is one of the most important privileges of the opposition. Why does the government want to reduce the time given to the opposition in a debate on a motion to shut down debate? Is closure not enough?

The opposition has 13 out of 96 senators right now. Why does the government feel it needs to reduce the speaking time of the Leader of the Opposition?

Also, Senator Gold’s motion is giving five leaders 20 minutes each. I will remind you that four of those leaders have voted for the last government budget.

That leaves only 50 minutes for other senators to speak on a time allocation motion, compared to 90 minutes now. With one senator from each group speaking, that leaves only one senator from the opposition on a closure motion.

This is where equality between all groups does not make any sense, colleagues. When four groups support the policy of the government and are willing to support time allocation to shut down debates because they feel it is wasting their precious time, the new rules would give the opposition one fifth of the speaking time in the debate. Let me be clear, colleagues: Four out of five leaders are supporting that Senator Gold time allocates this very motion.

How is two hours to support the government and 30 minutes to oppose it fair? I remind you, colleagues, in such a scenario, the only thing that the opposition has left is limited time to express its point of view before the government’s will is realized. Senator Gold’s motion would add insult to injury by reducing the ability of the opposition to speak even further.

The next point in Senator Gold’s motion is the issue of duration of bells and the ability to defer votes. Section 13 of the motion replaces the current rule on the length of bells by requiring the Speaker to ask the representatives of five groups if there is agreement for the duration of the bells. I don’t know why the government chose to include five groups and not all recognized groups. Why is it necessary to ask five different people if they have agreed instead of asking the Government Whip if there is agreement?

I remind you that, in any event, it takes leave of the Senate to accept that agreement. Even under our current Rules, a group that has not been consulted or does not agree on the length of the bells could derail any agreement.

I don’t know what this change to the Rules adds, other than lengthening the proceedings before the Speaker can ask to call in the senators. The Trudeau government is a world-renowned expert in virtue signalling. This is simply another example of that.

It says it is giving new powers to some parliamentary groups when, in fact, they already have those powers. In his speech, Senator Gold said:

The agreement of the whips and liaisons of the three largest groups, as well as the government and opposition, would be required in order to modify the default time for bells on standing votes. This is currently exclusive to the government and opposition. A majority is not represented.

As I said, this is not true. The de facto agreement of all senators is required to modify the duration of the bells. Senator Brazeau and Senator McCallum, who are sitting as unaffiliated senators, have the right to do that. They stand up and do not agree and we have a one-hour bell. When the Speaker asks if there is an agreement on the bells, such agreement must be accepted by all senators.

Then, in section 14 of his motion, Senator Gold gives the right to defer a vote to five groups. I don’t know why he thinks groups other than the government and the opposition would need this right, other than to add to the list of pretend powers that the ISG, CSG and PSG will have. Since these changes are supposed to be about time-wasters, I am not sure that giving the right to defer votes to more people will save a whole lot of time.

Then we have the changes in section 17 of the motion that give status of ex officio on committees to three additional leaders. Any senator can attend the meetings of committees mentioned in section 17. The three leaders already have that right.

This change is about the right to receive documents and move motions. Wouldn’t it be simpler to have a rule allowing leaders to get the documents of the committees? As for the right to move motions, all recognized groups have members on the committee. A leader can be subbed in at any time during a meeting. Is this change in the rules really necessary, or is it just for optics, to make us believe that the government is actually giving powers to third parties?

In fact, this change has very real consequences for the Conservative Party. As I said before, we have here one group that opposes the Liberal government and four groups in which a majority voted to support the government in the most important vote, on the budget. It is basically four to one.

With this change, a committee of 12 regular members could see its membership grow by 5 ex officio members to 17. Right now, the Conservatives have two seats on such committees. The change to the Rules will add three leaders of groups supportive of the government, and we will go from an 11-to-3 split to a 14-to-3 split. I understand the leaders will not vote; however, the speaking time, the ability for opposition senators to ask questions, will be reduced.

Even more worrisome for the Conservatives, ex officio members count for the calculation of quorum. With Senator Gold’s new scheme, there could be a committee meeting with only the Leader of the Government and the leaders of the ISG, CSG and PSG in attendance and quorum would be attained — no one from the committee or the opposition, and Senator Gold would have the only vote.

Colleagues, is this something we want to support? Is this something this government has the audacity to put in front of us and think we won’t read this document? Is that the government’s idea of a democratic process? That is a new concept: clause-by-clause consideration of bills with only the Leader of the Government voting. Wow!

I wish I could be here after the next election, be the government leader and vote by myself. I would win every vote. At least it would be close.

This may not be the intention of the government, but it is one of the consequences. I’m sorry to hammer this, but skipping the committee process means that we cannot discuss at length how we can give additional powers, such as receiving documents, to groups other than the government and the opposition without opening the door to scenarios where dissenting voices could be excluded from committee proceedings.

Committee meetings are the next issue. Section 19 of the motion would allow committees to meet on a Monday when the Senate does not sit that precedes a Tuesday when the Senate sits. That may include statutory holidays such as Thanksgiving or Victoria Day. Is that an oversight, or is this what Senator Gold has in mind: the ability for the non-Conservative majority to force a committee sitting on a holiday?

Also, the way the motion reads, any committee can sit on a Monday. Shouldn’t it be restricted to committees that regularly sit on Mondays and during their regular time slots? Otherwise, on a Friday a chair could call for a meeting on the following Monday — for which senators would not have planned — which would force them to scramble to get to Ottawa.

How is that fair, colleagues?

Remember, if you vote for this motion, you could be the one that will have to make arrangements on a Friday when you’ve planned something over the weekend, and you will have to be here Monday.

Senator Gold’s motion is putting a mechanism in place to allow the Trudeau-appointed senators to hold committee meetings without Conservatives present, and this will be the case not only in the year or so that Trudeau will remain in power, but for a long time after the election.

In section 20 of the motion, Senator Gold adds the Independent Senators Group as a seconder of the motion creating the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators. In practice, what does this change? It is just a symbolic reduction of the role of the opposition.

Finally, in section 23 of this motion, Senator Gold is changing the definition of the term “Leader of the Government.” This is rather interesting.

In his decision of April 25, 2023, Speaker Furey said that Senator Gold is the government leader. He is the head of the government party. That was why he could use time allocation provisions in the Rules of the Senate.

Either his change is purely for optics — a symbolic change that has no effect in reality, since Senator Gold’s situation actually falls within the current definition of the “Leader of the Government” — or there is an actual need to change the definition, and then it is an admission that Speaker Furey’s decision was baseless.

Every time Senator Gold tries to defend his idea of a leader who is not part of a group he leads or a representative who does not necessarily support what he represents, it makes me think that deep down he is ashamed of representing this inept government, and I would not blame him for that. He is trying to make us believe that somehow he is some kind of non-partisan member of a partisan group and that he is part of a government led by a political party that he more or less supports. He goes to cabinet meetings, but he is not involved in their decisions. He is a tourist. Senator Gold would have us believe that he is just a bystander, a witness to the Trudeau car crash, just like the rest of us.

I am sorry, but I do not buy that.

Speaking of Senator Gold, I want to take this opportunity to correct some of the inaccuracies of his speech.

Senator Gold referred several times to the changes to the Parliament of Canada Act that were adopted as part of Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, or the BIA. In his speech, he said:

In order to implement those changes, the regulating body has to adopt implementing regulations. In other words, the Senate has to adopt a revised set of Rules. Absent that, the amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act would remain a paper tiger and an empty promise.

The problem is that this is not what the government has been saying for the last three years.

Senators, you will remember that the changes included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, created additional allocations for some of the leadership positions of the Independent Senators Group, or ISG; the Canadian Senators Group, or CSG; and the Progressive Senate Group, or PSG. The Conservative senators were comfortable with these changes. They reflected the fact that there were three organized groups led by some senators, for whom this represented additional responsibilities. It is fair that they be compensated for this as the leadership of the parties, other than the government and opposition in the House of Commons, are compensated.

Bill C-19 was the third legislative attempt in this Parliament to make such changes to the Parliament of Canada Act after Bill S-2 was killed by the Speaker of the House of Commons and Bill C-7 never went anywhere. Furthermore, the government had tabled this bill, then named Bill S-4, in the previous Parliament. In fact, today marks the third anniversary of the tabling of Bill S-4.

There were four different bills tabled by the government to make those changes. They never introduced changes to the Rules as a corollary. In fact, never in the debates on those four bills will you find mention of specific changes to the Rules.

If, as Senator Gold says, those modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act required changes to the Rules, why did the government wait three years before moving them? Why didn’t the government circulate the proposed changes when those bills were debated?

Because there was zero relationship between increasing the salaries of some senators and the content of Motion No. 165.

Minister Dominic LeBlanc appeared in May 2021 in front of our Committee of the Whole as part of the debate on Bill S-4. He never alluded to changes to the Rules to give more powers to the ISG or to dilute the powers of the opposition. Let me be clear: Senator Gold is incorrect when he says these changes have any relation at all to the Parliament of Canada Act. He made that up.

Another inaccuracy contained in Senator Gold’s speech of April 18, 2024, is this notion that somehow some senators cannot participate fully in debates. He said, “. . . the Rules, as they currently exist, have made it increasingly difficult for all senators to participate fully.”

He said that our system “. . . excludes an absolute majority of the senators . . . .”

I guess deep down he knows that he is going over the top here, as he later corrected himself, acknowledging that all senators are, in fact, equal, and our Rules reflect that. Let me make a couple of points on this.

First, it is false that senators cannot participate and that they are somehow excluded. Since 2016, we have always found ways to include all senators. Everyone can sit on committees. Every senator can rise on debate on any matter. All senators can vote the way they wish. Anyone can join a group — or not — with the exclusion of the Conservative Senate caucus for Trudeau appointees. That is not because of our Rules. This has always been the case, by the way.

In the June 2015 edition of the Senate Procedure in Practice, it says:

Senators who are not members of the government or opposition parties can participate fully in the work of the Senate and be appointed to committees.

That was in June 2015, before Justin Trudeau was elected Prime Minister and before Senator Harder came here as the first Trudeau appointee. We can see, again, this Liberal trick of presenting as new something that already exists.

Second, the fact that your leader has unlimited time to speak — or not — that they receive more money — or not — and that your whip may defer a vote — or not — has nothing to do with your ability to participate fully in Senate business. Motion No. 165 is about giving powers to the leadership of the ISG, the CSG and the PSG, not about giving individual senators any more power.

Individual senators, remember that: You’re getting nothing from this, and it is normal, as they are already equal to other senators, as Senator Gold said himself.

Let me be clear again: Senator Gold is incorrect when he says these changes will enable some senators to more fully participate, because all senators can already participate in any event, and the changes have no effect on an individual senator’s ability to participate in Senate work.

Senator Gold said in his speech that one of the objectives of this rule is to make the Senate less partisan. As I have explained already, nothing can be further from the truth.

Senator Gold is making a partisan move in unilaterally changing the Rules — a first in Canadian history. I am sure he is itching to double down and use time allocation and make sure his will prevails. This is hardly the beginning you want in this new, less partisan Senate.

We will see the mutation of the ISG into a second Liberal caucus in the Senate, as I have said. We will not have less partisan speeches; we will just have twice the same Liberal points of view.

When the Pierre Poilievre government will try to move its legislation, these two Liberal caucuses will undoubtedly work in unison against it. That will signal a return to the overly partisan nature of the Senate, when the government in place is faced with a determined majority opposition in the Senate, just like in 1896, 1911 and 1984, to name some examples. Nothing in the proposed changes that we have in front of us will reduce partisanship then. On the contrary, the new Rules will just exacerbate it.

Let me be clear again: Senator Gold is incorrect when he says these changes will reduce partisanship in the Senate.

Continuing to dissect his April 18 speech, I was surprised to hear Senator Gold pretend that the opposition is a relatively new concept in the Senate.

The fact that the Proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1867 contained the names of Conservatives and Liberals to be appointed as senators is proof that there was never any intention to have a non-partisan Senate. Queen Victoria could have appointed men unaffiliated to political parties, or at least act like Justin Trudeau and pretend to do so. She did the contrary. The Liberals sat in opposition for the first two terms. When Alexander Mackenzie and the Liberals came to power in 1874, the Liberal senators became part of the government.

I want to reassure Senator Gold that the position of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate dates back to 1867. Luc Letellier de Saint-Just — a good Liberal — was the first to hold this position. The job I hold has been in existence for as long as the job that Senator Gold holds.

Let me be clear again: Senator Gold is incorrect when he says that the opposition in the Senate is a new concept, and that his attacks against the opposition are just a return to the roots of the Senate.

Speaking of the first leader of the opposition, who became leader of the government in the Senate a few years later, he was known to have a sharp tongue. I don’t think Senator Gold was correct in his speech when he said that the Senate was not created with the intention that it should simply replicate the highly partisan talking points in the other place. Although Hansard was then written in a very sanitized manner, my team showed me an excerpt of one of Saint-Just’s interventions, where he said about one of his colleagues that he had “neither energy nor ability,” that he “ruined the Grand Trunk Railway,” that he was “like Satan” and that he was “guilty of splendid egotism.” That was in one speech. Today, Conservatives were asked to leave the House of Commons because they called the Prime Minister what the Prime Minister really is: a racist. The myth about the early Senate full of gentlemen debating courteously above partisanship is just that: a myth.

I know you’ve been waiting for these words: in conclusion. One thing that has changed in the Senate under Justin Trudeau, though, is the idea that the Rules have to be changed by consensus.

The government has been clear: This package will not be amended, and debate has to be limited. If you listen to the Trudeau government and their supporters in the Senate, nothing is more urgent than changing the Rules of the Senate. Canadians are waiting with bated breath, hoping that we change the Rules. I could well have 700,000 views on this because people are waiting for this. If you listen to the Trudeau government and their supporters, nothing is more urgent. Canadians are waiting with bated breath to see if Senator Gold will be able to give Justin Trudeau his departing gift of a Senate controlled by his senators.

People waiting for hours in emergency wards across the nation are on the edge of their seats: “Will Senator Saint-Germain have more than 45 minutes to speak?” It’s an important issue for people across the country. People in the lineup at the food bank are asking themselves, “Will the Progressive Senate Group and the Canadian Senators Group have the right to defer a vote?” People filling out their tax forms today are saying to themselves, “I am so happy to pay all that income tax. We will soon have a Senate where more senators will have more time to praise Justin Trudeau.”

On the second day of debate, even before a second senator had the chance to speak, the government is threatening time allocation. Instead of allowing us to present amendments, Senator Gold will use the hammer and close debate. He has made his bed; he will ram this motion through, no matter what.

The only good news — as I said — is that this is hopefully the last attack the Trudeau government will make on the Senate. Canadians are waiting for this, in those same emergency wards, in those same food lineups and in those same houses where people are doing their tax returns today. They are waiting for this: Canadians will soon give a massive mandate to Pierre Poilievre and the common sense Conservatives, who will then be able to appoint senators with a mandate to repair this broken, fractured Senate. They will have a daunting task in front of them, but I am confident that those who will still be here — and those of you who will still be here — will see the light and decide that we need a more efficient, independent and accountable Senate working for all Canadians.

Thank you, colleagues.

I wonder if Senator Plett would take a question.

Senator Plett would be pleased to take a question.

Senator, I share your view about the long‑term impact that these changes would have in the Senate, but I come at it from a different angle. My concern would be that if there is a change in government, in light of the recent history in Canada — as you know, a government is elected and re‑elected — people feel comfortable now that there are so many senators appointed by the current government, but that would change. In my experience — and probably in your experience as well — it changes surprisingly quickly. People leave for a host of reasons: personal situation, family members need them at home, or they’re disenchanted by what the government of the day is doing, because they’re from a different viewpoint and party. There’s a rapid turnover in the Senate, and then if the Conservatives win the election — and nobody can predict the future — there will be changes.

This opens the door to changes. As somebody on a different side of the equation than you, I think of the changes that your party might make, and I compound them by two, and it’s my worst nightmare. But that’s being done because we’re changing what has been — as you correctly noted — a consensus format since 1867.

My question is this: Given the appetite of the majority of senators for some changes to the Rules, and given the frustration that many senators are feeling because those Rules have not changed, are you able or willing to enter into negotiations over the next few weeks in order to see what changes would be acceptable to your caucus as we move the Senate in a different direction?

Thank you very much, Senator Downe. The very short answer is yes. But let me delve into it a bit. First, your worst nightmare is my wildest, best dream. At least our subconscious minds will be dealing with the same issue.

Yes, I would absolutely be willing, and we have been. I’m sure we will have people from the Rules Committee — speaking on debate — who will tell you that, even at the Rules Committee, some concessions were made. But this is all or nothing to Senator Gold; he made that clear. There are a number of issues here that we have been willing to negotiate. I was at the Rules Committee some weeks ago, where I absolutely said that I agree with some of the changes. But this is not the way to do it. This is all or nothing. I heard this today again at other meetings that I attended: Do or die. Today or never. Right now, all of this has to be passed. That’s not the way to do this, Senator Downe. I think you, at least, agree with that. Thank you.

Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is, therefore, suspended, and I will leave the chair until eight o’clock.