The Senate
Question of Privilege--Speaker's Ruling Reserved
October 19, 2023
If there will be a standing vote, I have a question of privilege.
You are raising a question of privilege, so you may speak.
Thank you. Your Honour, I rise pursuant to rule 13-4(a) to raise a question of privilege without notice. This rule reads:
If a Senator becomes aware of a matter giving rise to a question of privilege either after the time for giving a written notice or during the sitting, the Senator may either:
(a) raise it during the sitting without notice at any time, except during Routine Proceedings, Question Period or a vote, but otherwise generally following the provisions of this chapter . . . .
When my office raised my attention to this subject matter this afternoon — after reading the scroll that was circulated to my office from the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office today at 12:27 p.m., and cross-referencing Government Motion No. 132 against the Order Paper — this activity fell within the three-hour minimum for notice to be given prior to the sitting, as required under rule 13-3(1). As such, this question of privilege falls legitimately under the aforementioned rule 13-4(a).
Your Honour, I am very concerned about Government Motion No. 132, and the ramifications it will have on effectively limiting the time for debate on non-government or other business — items that are already afforded precious little time for consideration in this place.
Based on the seeming lack of concern or urgency surrounding this motion, I am led to believe that this item most likely came about through conversations and agreement between the Government Representative Office, or GRO, and the four leaders, or their representatives, on the matter.
However, since these leaders do not represent non-affiliated senators, such agreements are not applicable to us, as we have no involvement in or forewarning of such discussions, or the decisions they lead to.
As a senator, I made the difficult choice to become non‑affiliated because of the marginalization, inequity and lack of support I felt as a member of an established group. I find that I now continue to be treated as unequal — this time due to my conscious decision to sit as non-affiliated — even though the Senate prides itself on the principle of equality of senators. I have written numerous letters to the four leaders about such concerns surrounding the lack of involvement of myself and my fellow non-affiliated senators in decisions that greatly impact not only us but also the people we represent. Is such marginalization not representative of the status quo of how things were done 100, 50 or even 10 years ago?
Further meaningful change is needed in light of enduring policies and processes that are outdated and, frankly, discriminatory. I was yet again not consulted before this decision was reached. This instance continues a dangerous exclusion of non-affiliated senators wherein I continue to be excluded from the meaningful process of negotiation. This reality continues to impact my duties as a senator — a senator who is Cree, First Nations and a woman that brings critical life-and-death issues to the floor for the people I serve.
There is other business that is critical to the people we represent — those segments of the population that are excluded from the majority represented in the other place. This other business is extremely important, and often broadens our perspectives of incoming legislation to ensure that we do the right thing for Canadians. As senators, we have a sacred responsibility that comes with the term “honourable” — to debate on issues so we can increase our awareness, knowledge and wisdom, and act accordingly.
As this motion will result in the foregoing of countless hours’ worth of time that would typically be set aside to discuss other business for the duration of this session, we continue to marginalize the very people we are supposed to represent.
As such, Your Honour, I would like to request your ruling on this matter of whether my privilege is being breached when I am forced to be party to a deal that I was not involved in and gave no agreement to, and which limits my ability to listen, to speak and to raise questions on matters of critical import to those I represent in this chamber. Thank you.
Do any other senators want to participate in the discussion?
I shall be very brief. I want to speak in support of the concerns that have been set out very well today by Senator McCallum. She certainly speaks for me in the comments that she made.
I would ask all of us in responding to this point — and I realize this is something that will have to be ruled on by you, Your Honour — to think about the fact that every time we come into this chamber and begin a sitting, you start with a prayer. We are all part of that. I just want to remind us of the import of the comments made by Senator McCallum about the kind of representation that we have taken on as our responsibility — which takes time. The nature of this motion is to reduce time and opportunities.
The prayer that I’m referring to points out that we ask the following:
. . . let your spirit preside over our deliberations so that at this time assembled, we may serve ever better the cause of peace and justice in our land and throughout the world.
Thank you.
Given what we heard from our colleagues, Senator McCallum and Senator McPhedran, I see a need for clarification about the scope of this government motion, because the interpretation we’re hearing is not accurate. Other colleagues have said things that lead me to the same conclusion.
With your consent, I think we could ask the Government Representative to provide more information about the scope of the motion and to confirm whether it means that, on Thursdays, there will no longer be any study of non-government bills unless we’re done with Government Business before six o’clock. Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the intent and the consequences of the motion that I’m asking the Senate to consider and vote on.
I will address the question of privilege. Thank you, though, for your invitation. In passing, I hope that I clarify certain things, but I really think it’s appropriate — since a question of privilege was raised — to respectfully register my view that no privilege of any senator has been infringed by the motion before us.
The leadership representatives of the organized groups and caucuses meet regularly to discuss many matters, and in particular, how government legislation shall proceed. That is my primary responsibility, and I convene those meetings for those purposes. In such a case — and we met, and I’ll come to the rationales for the suggestions that were made to me by others for considering how we could manage some of the challenges that many of you are facing on Thursdays — we brought forward a motion for the consideration of the Senate as a whole. It is simply not the case that deals by the leaders bind those who are either in the groups or not affiliated with any groups. The issue before us is whether the Senate as a whole supports or not the motion that is before you. No one is bound by the deals that I may make with Senators Plett, Saint-Germain, Cordy or Tannas in matters like the one before us.
Second, non-government business is a staple and an important part of what we do in the Senate. Just look at the Order Paper. Forgive me for imperfect mathematics, but I believe there are over 75 Senate public bills on the Order Paper. When you add to that motions and inquiries, it is hard to deny that a significant part of what we do and the contribution we try to make is in areas of non-government business.
I mention that, Your Honour, because this order, if it’s approved, affects all senators in all groups. They may not necessarily be happy to have time somewhat limited, though not taken away, for non-government business on Thursdays. If the motion is passed, it will affect all senators because the majority of senators so decreed, and I do not believe in circumstances like that the privileges of senators can be said to be infringed when collectively we have decided to change the rules for the purposes — and what are the purposes?
The purposes are to address a real challenge for those of you — not me personally, who has it easy because I’m two hours by car from Montreal — to get home in a timely fashion because of the decreasing number of flights available and the increasing challenges and unpredictability of those flights. Therefore, it was proposed around the leadership table to find an equitable way to at least give some predictability to those of you who have to make those arrangements and often find yourselves stuck, with no ability to get home, with all of the costs, personal and financial, that may accrue.
This motion simply proposes that the Senate rises at the later of six o’clock or the end of Government Business. Today being Thursday, we’re going to be doing non-government business, as we have been doing many Thursdays and we may continue to do many Thursdays. To be sure, there will come a time, as there always is, towards the end of the fall, as we approach the break for the holidays, and, of course, in June, when we will be consumed with government business. That will probably take us well into the evenings on Thursdays, if not many other nights. But under those circumstances, as we know from past experience, time runs out for non-government business in any event.
In conclusion, thank you for raising the question and for underlying the impact that a motion like this will have on all of us who have non-government business that we want to advance. Again, I submit that no privilege has been breached, that this is a classic example of the Senate being responsible for its own affairs. I do hope after your ruling, Your Honour, that we can bring this to a vote and the Senate shall decide. Thank you, Your Honour.
Do any other senators wish to add anything? The question would be to whom, Senator McCallum?
Senator Gold.
I will take this under advisement and I will come back with a ruling. Thank you.
Are we finished with the point of privilege?
I asked if there were any other senators. Yes, I am. I will take it under advisement.
If I may? On the motion.
I’m taking it under advisement. Sorry, I didn’t understand your question. Thank you.
