Honourable senators, first let me thank Senator Quinn for standing for his amendment, for seeing it through. I supported the other side of it.

It is funny. Senator Plett is the only leader here who wins every argument in his group. But I made the argument because I believed it, because I believed that the only opportunity that we would have to vote on this particular issue is if the government brought it forward. We would still have some motion such as the one that Senator Woo had and I had languishing on the back of the Order Paper. We would have a report from the Rules Committee that would be sitting there, ignored, all the way along.

The original meeting of Senate reform was the survey that was initiated by Senator Massicotte and Senator Greene nine years ago. There were a number of people from the Liberals and the Conservatives — a slightly larger number of Liberals than Conservatives, but that was fine. We met in October, the month of the election, and had what I thought was a tremendous full‑day-and-a-half session talking about what we needed to do to reform the Senate.

This was informed by a lot of information that was out there — including the Supreme Court reference that dealt with a lot of Prime Minister Harper’s desires for reforming the Senate, and essentially dashed them — and a growing feeling amongst Liberals and Conservatives that the traditional model was indefensible. The public opinion was crystal clear on how they felt the Senate was doing and that there was an inertia that what we were doing was just fine.

It wasn’t just fine. Many of us knew it wasn’t just fine. That led to the Modernization Committee’s first and second reports, obstruction all over the place at every turn to try to get rules changed.

This motion provides a very small measure — but a measure nonetheless — of equity and recognition for the reality of the Senate as it is composed today.

You have heard that rule changes in Motion No. 165 have been proposed and studied for years. I am here, living proof, that that is the case.

It takes nothing away from the opposition, their tools or the government tools. It just simply levels the playing field for what is the reality of multiple groups: partisan, independent, non‑partisan, whatever you want to call them. Multiple groups beyond Liberals and Conservatives in this place.

I dislike time allocation immensely, but in this particular case I believed it was the only possible way, after nine years of discussion, that we were going to move forward and establish a set of rules that reflects the reality as it is today and as it will be for many years to come.

Time allocation has hardly been used in the Trudeau era. The credit for that goes to the opposition. It also goes to Senator Harder and later to Senator Gold. But even in the majority years, when opposition was in the majority here, there were good faith negotiations and every single government bill passed. Maybe it didn’t pass as fast as the government would have liked, but it passed. We gave it scrutiny. We dealt with it properly.

I want to take a minute and talk about opposition. There is a saying that I have heard — and I believe it to be so true — that the worst day in government is still miles better than the best day in opposition. This is a difficult job. It is a necessary and important job in this chamber. I believe it is a fallacy to think that we could get along and be efficient and true to what Canadians want without a functioning opposition that got up every morning to try figure out how to poke holes in what was being sold to us by the government.

When I arrived here in 2013, I witnessed the previous opposition near the end, at about the same amount of time in opposition as this opposition. They were dispirited. They were hostile. They were obstructionist. They were tired of doing the job. But they were united in the hope that the future was going to be better and better soon. I recognize those same qualities in our colleagues here.

When I first came here, the Liberal opposition, in spite of all of that, did their work. They did it with dignity, with passion and they served the Senate and Canadians well. I want to give my respect to my colleagues right now. They are doing exactly what they should be doing in the way that they should be doing it. I don’t always like to hear about it, but there is no way I want to be in a place where I don’t hear about it, where I don’t hear criticism. If you get up and fight and lose every single day for seven years, then maybe we’ll earn the right to criticize.

I’ll go back to the motion.

The Conservatives have laid out that this motion will hurt the opposition and help the government, except they’ve warned us that it will help the government and hurt the opposition when they are on the other side — fair enough.

There is a narrative going around right now that the motion is a plot to create a multi-pronged opposition to repeal legislation. This is one I that I saw today in a fundraising email from Alberta: It will start when the Poilievre government goes to repeal Bill C-69 and this scheme will be unveiled, and we will all work diligently to prevent the repeal of Bill C-69.

I have more faith in this Senate, with these people, than that. I think most of you do as well. I believe we will continue to do the job.

We have some evidence on our side. Every single government bill has passed here and not been rejected. It has been done with only two closure motions. We now have the third closure motion of the last nine years, and it is on a motion. However, we have also amended 25% of all the government legislation that has come through here.

What do we have from the previous 10 years to compare that to, before 2015 and the so-called independent Senate?

In the 10 years prior to 2015, 7% of government bills were amended and closure happened 28 times, including 6 times on motions. Senator Martin mentioned that there were no motions; there were, in fact, six closure motions on motions.

I agree with something that Senator Plett quoted from an article in The Globe and Mail, which is that the true test of the independent Senate is yet to come. I believe that to be the case; I agree. However, with a mix of partisan groups and non-partisan independent groups — whatever you want to call them — a makeup that involves more than government and opposition, I believe we will continue to be effective, serve Canadians and observe what the majority of Canadians have given as a mandate to the duly elected house.

Based upon how effective we’ve been so far and how effective I believe we will be, I am confident that we will continue to serve Canadians even if and when a government of a different stripe is sending us legislation.

Let’s get on with this and pass this motion. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I also want to add my voice briefly to this important debate.

The time for these necessary changes is now. What we have in front of us, I believe, is the culmination of many efforts, thoughts and reflections that have happened over the last many years. I look around this chamber with gratitude for the work of Senators Greene, Massicotte, Sinclair, Dalphond, Tannas and Woo.

I also thank Senator Bellemare, chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, as well as all of the committee’s members. They deliberated over the course of seven meetings, and for nine hours, and in their fifth report, they presented us with a number of changes on group equity, which Senator Gold included in Motion No. 165.

I’d also like to acknowledge Senator Gold’s commitment to ensuring that our Rules reflect the current transition from a bipartite to a multipartite chamber. We are now considering this proposal, which is actually the sum of our collective efforts over several years.

Does it go far enough? It’s enough for now, I would say. Basically, I remain in agreement with the essence of this motion.

We heard a number of arguments up until now and, like many of you, colleagues, I reflected upon them in preparation for tonight. We heard that it was too quick, forced upon this chamber and unprecedented. That is not the case. We heard that this motion would take away the ability of the opposition to do its job. It will not. We heard it is a betrayal of the traditions of the Westminster system. It is not.

Here we are with this motion, which I support.

This isn’t the first time we’ve made changes to our Rules, nor will it be the last.

In preparation for this speech, I was made aware of several debates that preceded the adoption of substantial amendments to our Rules. The 1991 amendments to the Rules of the Senate caught my attention, and I believe that they brought perspective to what we have in front of us.

I won’t dwell at length on Senator Dalphond’s eloquent reminder that the substantial 1991 amendments were agreed to by a vote of 40 for and 30 against, and that the report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament was not unanimous. Let’s not forget that it was drafted in the absence of Liberal senators, who boycotted all committee work on these amendments.

Colleagues, if you take the time to read the Debates of the Senate between June 11 to 18, 1991, I suspect that you, too, will find that they clearly illustrate how the 1991 process is far from comparable to the work that preceded the introduction of this motion before us, which is the sum of several interventions and initiatives. It has been a step-by-step process to get to this point.

Of course, we can certainly aspire to reach consensus but — let’s be honest — it is rarely feasible in any group of this size and nature. What we see in the Rules Committee report is a strong majority supporting the changes in front of us, and that is key. Furthermore, some colleagues on the Rules Committee chose to work by consensus, only to realize at the end of the study that this, perhaps, was not the best avenue.

Let me refer to the following words from Senator Ringuette on February 7, 2023:

I’m really disappointed. In hindsight, I would not have agreed to move forward on consensus. . . .

. . . This committee had a mandate to move on equity between parties and groups. We have not achieved that goal. . . . If we had not agreed on consensus, we would have. That is something to bear in mind for certain colleagues.

It is my view that when they embark upon their important work regarding the non-affiliated senators, the honourable members of the Rules Committee should take some time to clearly articulate what they want and what they mean by consensus. Certainly, the definition calls for more than a simple majority, but it does not mean unanimity.

We’ve also heard in this chamber that equity between recognized parties and groups could dilute the partisan opposition, thereby preventing it from playing its role to the fullest. I didn’t find that argument convincing.

It’s clear to me that this motion would not prevent the partisan opposition from doing what it is already doing — and doing very well — or would like to do in the future.

In his April 10, 2019, speech on the 13th report of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, Senator Greene, who is to be applauded for his perseverance in pushing for change, made the following remarks, which justified the relevance of that motion on equity entirely:

The influx of unaligned senators has shown that opposition can come from anywhere. We were a bipolar house once upon a time, but we are presently multipolar. The result is we have become more relevant. We amend more, and the cries for abolition have receded. But we need a set of rules that recognizes our multipolar nature and that encourages opposition from any corner of the Senate to form around any piece of legislation.

Of course, being a senator also means holding the government to account, keeping its feet to the fire, scrutinizing its decisions and questioning its actions. This is part of our responsibilities, and I would say that many people in every corner of this chamber exercise this privilege with a great sense of responsibility.

As we know, the Senate is a historic compromise that was not designed by the Fathers of Confederation to be a replica of the House of Commons, the ultimate place of partisan competition. By the original distribution and the non-elected method of selection of its members, the Senate was not originally designed to be a partisan environment. The Supreme Court emphasized this principle in its 2014 ruling on the Senate reform.

In a speech during the debates on the Confederation of the United Province of Canada in 1865, Sir John A. Macdonald, then a member of the Legislative Assembly and Attorney General of Canada West, said about the future of the Senate that:

There would be no use of an Upper House, if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House.

Each of us, in our own way, style and purpose, shares a common understanding of why we’re here. Many observers increasingly agree that we are fulfilling these responsibilities very well.

Nelson Wiseman, a political science professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, told CTV News just a few weeks ago that:

. . . this Senate is the best Senate we’ve had . . . certainly in the history of the last, I would say 90 to 100 years. And that’s because we actually have people that are acting more independently.

Colleagues, I respect the objective of this motion, which is to take nothing away from the opposition. However, I will say that I was personally very comfortable with the proposals of Senators Woo and Tannas, which notably consisted in granting the same 45 minutes of speaking time to all leaders and facilitators. However, something else is being proposed to us. I took note of the arguments in support of this proposal, and I can live with them. I also wonder a little about the decision to grant ex officio status to the other leaders and facilitators without voting rights. This could result in situations where a leader or facilitator introduces a motion but can’t vote on their own motion. In my view, that points to a certain lack of consistency. I can live with that too, in the spirit of this motion, which, as we saw and as was shown, takes nothing away from the opposition.

This brings me to my final point, namely, whether the principle of equity sought by most senators would compromise our commitment to the Westminster parliamentary system.

The twelfth report of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, dedicated to this issue, is very enlightening on the diverse and very flexible nature of the Westminster system. According to Professor Philippe Lagassé, presented in that report as an expert in parliamentary democracy, Westminster is not a fixed, immutable system so much as a set of principles: “You have the liberty to move away from that if you so choose and still call it Westminster.”

Professor David Docherty is even more specific when he states:

. . . I think we failed to recognize just how flexible and adaptable the Westminster parliamentary system is. They are much smaller, but we have two Westminster governments in Canada in two of the territories, and they don’t have parties. They’re elected as independents and they vote for who’s going to be in cabinet, and that seems to work out fine.

The example of Nunavut and Northwest Territories mentioned by Professor Docherty shows that the adversarial mode associated with the Westminster system is not always partisan.

Honourable colleagues, I’ve been here for eight and a half years now, and in that time I’ve certainly not become an expert on the Westminster system, and I won’t pretend to be one. I have, however, read and heard enough to realize a few things. When it comes to the Westminster system, you can have three people with the same level of expertise, competence and knowledge, and they will come to three different conclusions, all with the same level of confidence. My humble conclusion? There are several models of the Westminster system. It’s flexible, evolving, multi‑faceted.

It’s worth noting that there hasn’t always been symmetry or concordance between His Majesty’s official opposition and the opposition in the Senate. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP, which have never had a senator, have been the official opposition in the House of Commons. In his February 21, 2001, ruling, Speaker Hays stated that our parliamentary system continued to function even though the Senate had an opposition that did not match the official opposition in the House of Commons, because they are independent, autonomous bodies performing roles that are complementary to each other.

Before concluding, allow me to make one final point. As others have said, and I agree, it is an indisputable fact that not all senators in this chamber are treated equally. As such, we must continue to work toward greater fairness for our non-affiliated colleagues. That’s also what an independent Senate is all about. Choosing whether or not to belong to a group should not limit a senator’s ability to exercise their duties.

For the sake of fairness, we the senators who do not have a political platform to propose or promote in this chamber are entitled to demand more space and tools to properly discharge our responsibilities.

Only the future will tell us whether it’s possible to achieve a complete non-partisan Senate, but for now what we have control over is working toward equitable cohabitation between those who proudly belong to a political party, as is their right, those who choose to represent the government of the day and those of us who are without political affiliation as non-partisan. This is what we are asked to do as we vote on this motion — nothing more, nothing less. Thank you, meegwetch.

Honourable senators, listening to the debate on Motion No. 165, I have come away really puzzled by some of the claims that were made about the proposed changes to the Rules of the Senate. Let me focus on three questions that have arisen for me.

First, is it reasonable to claim that these rule changes are being “rammed and jammed” through the Senate when changes have been discussed for almost nine years? I’ll quote Deputy Chair of the Rules Committee Senator Batters:

These rule changes . . . previously tried and failed to be forced through before . . . .

. . . Now, 18 months later, the Trudeau government is bringing this draconian omnibus motion in this chamber.

Now, we are the chamber of sober second thought. As a result, things commonly move very slowly around here, but discussion and debate surrounding these rule changes have been going on for almost nine years. I believe that we have finally reached the point where we can stop “sober-second-thought-ing” and make a decision. As Yogi Berra might advise: We’ve been sitting at a fork in the road, so let’s finally take it.

I was a member of the Independent Senators Group when I was asked to join the Rules Committee. I only lasted one meeting. I truly commend my colleagues who sit on that committee. In that two-hour meeting, debate focused on whether the Clerk should read out every item on our Order Paper at every Senate sitting. Those in favour of this change noted that the scroll meeting occurs just a few hours before the sitting each day, and if no speaker is identified — and generally, no speaker is identified for 90% of the items — why read out every item?

For the handful of people who may be watching this at home, our “scroll” is simply our agenda. To be clear, every time we meet in the chamber, every item of business is considered for debate whether or not a senator intends to speak.

Let’s contemplate the results of this supposedly radical change. If not every item on our Order Paper was read out at every sitting, a senator who wanted to speak on an item not on the scroll would only have to stand once debate on the previous item concluded and ask Her Honour if they can rise on debate on the item of their choice. Yet changing this outdated tradition was deemed to be highly inappropriate and possibly contrary to our parliamentary privilege. As a result, this productivity-diminishing practice will remain even when the proposed rule changes are implemented.

So, honourable colleagues, we will continue to reliably hear “stand” repeated countless times at every sitting, just so things don’t move too swiftly around here.

Returning to my point, no, I don’t think that these changes are being “rammed and jammed” through the Senate. Changes that reflect the new reality in the Senate have been discussed for almost nine years.

Second, are these long-proposed, Senate-created rule changes being thrust on us by Prime Minister Trudeau? I’ll quote Senator Plett, who last week said, “Justin Trudeau wants those changes, and what Justin Trudeau wants, his senators have to deliver. . . .”

Senator Plett’s claim runs contrary to the fact that the work that led to the ultimate development of the proposed rule changes began in late 2015 with the formation of a Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, as we were reminded earlier.

That committee was dominated by a majority of members appointed by Conservative former prime minister Stephen Harper. These members included Senator Greene as chair of the committee, as well as Senators Brazeau, Frum, McInnis, Maltais, Mockler, Stewart Olsen, Verner and Wells.

The committee’s final report was enthusiastically tabled by Senator Greene on April 10, 2019 — more than four years ago. I don’t know how many of you remember being there, but he did a great job. The job of modernizing the Senate Rules was then handed to the Rules Committee — four years ago. The suggestion that Prime Minister Trudeau is thrusting these rule changes upon the Senate when the intention to modernize the Rules of the Senate first originated in a Conservative-dominated Senate, with work being completed by a Conservative-dominated committee, is cockamamie.

Therefore, in addition to the work of the Conservative-dominated Senate Modernization Committee, the facts before us regarding the proposed rule changes are that they have been discussed in the Standing Senate Committee on Rules for over five years; were twice before tabled in the Senate, first by a senator appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau and next by a senator appointed by former Prime Minister Harper; and are now supported by the Government Representative in the Senate.

My third and final question is a puzzling one: Why are these proposed changes being fought against so vigorously by the Conservative caucus? As Senator Plett clarified and corrected last week, the Conservatives are currently 21 points ahead of the Liberals in the polls.

It is 22 points.

I’m sorry — 22 points. I’m behind the times. It’s hard to keep up.

Those same polls suggest that the Prime Minister is out of favour with the vast majority of Canadians. So, it appears that Senator Plett may be entirely justified in believing that the Conservatives will form the next government.

At the same time, it’s also claimed that these rule changes dilute the opposition’s powers to do their rightful job of simply delaying the implementation of Government legislation. However, the ability to be oppositional in the Senate remains unchanged, as evidenced last Thursday. There were six motions to adjourn the Senate, each with an hour bell. The first motion to adjourn was moved before 4 p.m. and the last at 11:57 p.m., three minutes before the Senate must adjourn, the result being that the Senate actually adjourned after 1 a.m. In addition, there was a two-hour dinner break, so there were eight hours of oppositional protest last Thursday. It was a Senate version of a sit-in.

Now, I have a dominant Scottish gene, as I’ve mentioned before, and hate waste. Senator Plett speaks to a concern about waste quite often as well. So, the waste of eight hours of Senate time is frustrating, especially when we have important and long‑awaited private members’ bills that need our attention — like Bill C-280, to support fruit and vegetable farmers, and Bill C-244, regarding the right to repair, among others.

Considering all the effort Senator Plett is investing to try to convince us that these rule changes will somehow hamper the opposition when we have a Conservative government potentially about to be elected, perhaps people are protesting too much. Perhaps these rule changes will weaken the opposition’s power, but given where the Conservatives sit in the polls, these changes will soon be to their benefit, as Senator Housakos pointed out quite eloquently.

Senator Plett, you may have made a bit of a strategic error over the last couple of years, because you forced our attendance at many memorable and highly extended training sessions on delay tactics. I think some have been paying attention — job well done.

To wrap up, I know it is often claimed that Trudeau-appointed senators receive phone calls from the Prime Minister. I must admit that I, like others here, have also received a phone call from the Prime Minister. It only happened once, however, in June 2018, and it was a highly memorable because he called to offer me a Senate appointment. During that call, he made one very clear and specific request: that I “challenge the government.” I try to do so respectfully and collegially. Others may have received other requests or phone calls, but I have not.

I see my role as not simply opposing or delaying government legislation and motions but finding ways to improve them. I believe the Senate should act independently but not be antagonistic to legislation proposed by a duly elected government. Our job is to be fully engaged in hearing concerns that may not have been previously considered and, where appropriate, to propose amendments intended to improve government legislation.

Senator Tannas previously commented that our role in the Senate is not to simply be an “. . . off-Broadway version of the House of Commons.” Colleagues, that captures my vision of the Senate.

I hope that these rule changes will help to maintain a degree of independence for the Senate. As such, I look forward to finally voting in favour of these rule changes that we’ve discussed for many years. Thank you, colleagues.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak very briefly in support of Motion No. 165, which I view as an extremely positive step in the evolution toward the independent Senate that Canadians have clearly indicated that they want and support.

First, I want to thank Senator Gold in particular for this initiative and for moving this initiative forward. Truly, I have been here every day and I’ve seen the reaction and the response. I’ve seen how you’ve been spoken to, and sometimes I don’t know how you do it, but I’m very grateful that you’ve taken this forward.

As we’ve heard from Senators Gold, Saint-Germain, Woo, Dalphond and Tannas and other honourable senators, this initiative has been very long in development. We have been reminded of the 13 reports of the Modernization Committee, motions by individual senators and, later, the work of the Rules Committee in their efforts to bring forward rule changes.

As noted by Senator Saint-Germain, 147 meetings have been held between the Senate Modernization Committee and the Rules Committee since 2016, all of which included elements of today’s motion. As Senator Deacon just said, the claim that the rule changes embedded in the motion before us today are somehow a rushed or last-minute effort to force changes couldn’t be further from the truth.

Today’s motion also flows from the framework legislation passed by both chambers in 2022 in the form of changes to the Parliament of Canada Act. The goal is simply to move toward a more equitable Senate which recognizes the changes in the composition of this chamber. Independent senators, who make up the majority, are not second-class participants in this chamber.

Thank you, colleagues. This motion includes rule changes which recognize that.

Today, my goal is to speak briefly about this evolving Senate, and about how Canadians view our upper chamber.

During my 35-year career in the public opinion research business, I have had the opportunity to consult Canadians on the many proposals that were advanced to achieve Senate reform. In 1987, the Meech Lake Accord included, in its short list of provisions, a clause giving the provinces the ability to submit names to the Prime Minister to fill Senate spots. That accord died in 1990.

In 1992, the Charlottetown Accord included, in its very long list of provisions, clauses to implement a “Triple-E” Senate — a Senate of Canada that would be elected, equal and effective. That accord died on the heels of a national referendum, which failed that year.

In 2011, former prime minister Stephen Harper introduced legislation with term limits for senators and proposals to allow the provinces to hold Senate elections. That reform also died when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the 2014 reference that such changes would require constitutional amendments. Mr. Harper knew then — as we still know now — how difficult it is to change the Constitution.

In fact, a 2022 Environics poll shows that only 35% of Canadians would reopen the Constitution for the purpose of making changes to the Senate. Colleagues, we would need a lot more public support than that for this country to go down that road again.

In my lifetime, the only major Senate reform that has truly succeeded among all these efforts has been Prime Minister Trudeau’s initiative toward creating an independent Senate.

I want to make a few observations about public opinion. Since 2019, I have been taking periodic soundings of public opinion on the Senate of Canada, and it’s fair to say that we still have challenges with the way the public views our institution. The bad news is that Canadians still, by a bare majority, have negative views of the Senate, but the good news is that these negative perceptions have declined significantly from the dark days of early 2016 when the Senate scandals still dominated public perceptions. Positive views are also moving upward.

When it comes to the independent Senate in particular, we see significant positive feedback from Canadians. There is widespread approval of the new Senate appointment process that has been in place since 2016. The vast majority of Canadians think it’s a good thing — a good change — that new senators sit as independents, and are not active in a political party. A large majority thinks it is a good development to have an open application process, and that applications for the Senate are reviewed by an independent board. All of these are seen as positive developments for the Senate.

Most importantly, the public wants future governments to keep building an independent Senate. The vast majority of Canadians are calling for future governments to keep these changes to the appointment process, and almost no one wants to return to the previous ways of appointing senators.

We’ve heard, over the last few days, about how Mr. Poilievre, the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, gained some prominence last week with his comments in the House of Commons and also with his statements about the notwithstanding clause. I came across something else that caught my attention — it’s an article that he published in the National Post just a few days ago on May 3. In the article, Mr. Poilievre describes how he will approach public policy. He urged business leaders — in fact, he urged all Canadians who want policy change — to do the following:

If you do have a policy proposal, don’t tell me about it. Convince Canadians that it’s good for them. Communicate your policy’s benefits directly to workers, consumers and retirees.

I thank him for his definitive statement that the views of Canadians should be — and will be — the determinant of public policy, should he form government.

We can see that this is especially important when it comes to the topic at hand — the new Senate. Canadians are telling us clearly that the move toward an independent Senate, where senators are not active in a political party and do not sit in a partisan caucus, is a good development for Canada. They are telling us that future governments must continue with these changes, and must not return to the previous ways of appointing senators.

Colleagues, in closing, we still have work to do. We must keep building awareness of the Senate’s unique role in governance, and we must build awareness of the move toward independence and non-partisanship. When awareness of the independent Senate increases, positive attitudes increase. The rule changes included in Motion No. 165 are an important and vital step toward recognizing our independent Senate, and I will be voting “yes.”

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 165, like a number of other senators have done tonight.

Although I am relatively new to this place, I am learning that nothing moves particularly fast, and sometimes that might be a good thing. This is especially true when it comes to implementing significant reforms to this institution. Change takes time. It takes time for consideration, consultation and negotiation.

As we’ve heard, this package of amendments is the result of eight years — almost nine years — of working on reforms to this place. The Government Representative in the Senate took us through the history of these efforts. There were 13 reports produced by the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, countless studies at the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament and the individual efforts of a number of senators.

Here, I am singling out Senator Tannas, Senator Woo, Senator Greene and Senator Massicotte. I congratulate those senators on their collaboration and, quite frankly, their perseverance. These collective efforts were made in the face of strong opposition from detractors who would like to see the Senate remain exactly as it was.

The point I am making is that this motion did not come out of a vacuum. Motion No. 165 was not sprung on us. It was the result of years of careful consideration and hard work.

The Supreme Court of Canada Reference re Senate Reform made it clear that any changes to the structure of the Senate would require support from seven of the provinces representing 50% of the population. We all know how that story went, so Prime Minister Trudeau used the steps he had available to him to try to make the Senate more independent and less partisan.

Change needs to come from the inside, and, if we do not support these changes, nothing stops us from returning to the days of partisan duopoly, as Senator Woo pointed out.

A May 1 editorial in The Hill Times entitled “The Senate shouldn’t stand in the way of its own progress” recently commented on our current deliberations:

Although a strict reading of the party affiliations of Canadian prime ministers throughout history would have observers thinking differently, citizens of this country aren’t actually staunchly divided along two political lines.

This is why the Senate’s current growing pains are fascinating and frustrating in equal measure.

The editorial goes on to state:

Senator Marc Gold’s Motion 165 clocks in at more than 3,700 words, proposing a suite of changes that include—most contentiously, for some—expanding the Chamber’s two-party powers to other recognized groups.

Conservative Senators, who still enjoy the title of opposition in the Senate despite being the fourth-largest group, called Gold’s motion “draconian” and “unilateral,” and accused him of “ramming it through,” despite it being based on dust-gathering changes sought by other Senators over the years.

The Senate isn’t perfect, but it is made up of people who want the best for Canada. That shouldn’t be overshadowed by a death grip on rules and a structure that no longer reflects the best of the country.

The Senate of today may not be the Senate of tomorrow, but creating a framework that supports the removal of partisan strictures without the whole place devolving into Lord of the Flies is as good a model for Canadian society as any. And as purported leaders, all Senators should embrace that.

Senators, most Canadians are not in the habit of following our work closely. As we have seen time and again, when the Senate ends up in the news, it’s often not a positive story. My sense is most Canadians simply want a Senate that is going to work in their best interests regardless of partisan leaning. Yes, we are appointed, but we always need to remember to respect of provinces and territories whom we represent and serve. We owe it to them to do the best we can do.

I believe Motion No. 165 is a positive step forward in the ever‑evolving Senate reform process, and I will support its passage. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Honourable senators, I rise once again to speak on Senator Gold’s Motion No. 165 to amend the Rules of the Senate.

First of all, Senator Tannas, I stand corrected: I did move time allocation on government motions. However, none of those motions was an omnibus motion with a suite of rule changes for the chamber. I do stand corrected on that point.

This omnibus motion is comprised of a number of complicated and intricate elements, each of which require careful thought and consideration individually. This motion should have been reviewed in committee so that we could fully understand the consequences, both intended and unintended, to our parliamentary system. Sadly, the government has decided to skip the committee process, skip fulsome debate on the motion and force this chamber to restrict debate on such an important issue.

I am certain that over the next few years, we will realize that the government and its majority are being short-sighted, and more careful wording and thorough consideration of the unintended consequences should have been done. It is for these reasons that we have the Rules Committee. This committee is not there just for senators to talk endlessly about ideas, concepts and notions. It is, first and foremost, to carefully wordsmith the Rules.

Because I have limited time, I will focus on one element of this omnibus motion, namely, the one that proposes to create a new role: the designated senator, who will have the ability to speak for 45 minutes during debate on bills. As a senator who has had the privilege to serve as the opposition critic for several important pieces of legislation, this is an issue I care deeply about.

First, I must say that I am relieved that the government leader did not follow what was in previous motions on changes to the Rules and is not eliminating the function of critic of a bill. This was a direct hit on the opposition and, wisely, the government has decided to backtrack on this.

The debate on Motion No. 165 is a great opportunity to reflect on the history of our parliamentary institution and remind ourselves of its long and distinguished traditions which, though they have evolved with the times, have remained faithful to their origins for over 150 years.

Since Confederation, Canada’s Parliament has been divided into two bodies: a government and an opposition. Despite this division, the two bodies have always been bound by a common purpose: working together in pursuit of the common good. The duties of the government and the opposition complement one another. One introduces new policies while the other examines them carefully, finding not only flaws but providing a critique of their underlying philosophies and ideologies.

In his book titled Across the Aisle: Opposition in Canadian Politics, author David E. Smith writes:

Parliament’s purpose is to generate . . . agreement on policy by using the procedure of successive readings, committee examination of bills, and voting in two chambers . . . . Parliamentary debate is a great leveller of conflicting interests as well as a calming influence on intense feeling. The product achieved through inter-party compromise and, more typically, intra-party discipline is public policy deemed in the interests of the nation.

The key to understanding the purpose of the official opposition lies within the very nature of our democratic governing system, which functions according to historical, well-understood principles and practice. In fact, the existence of an official opposition predates Confederation. Before the provinces of Canada — Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — united to form our nation, they each possessed their own individual systems of governance comprised of both legislative assemblies and upper houses. After all these years, the role of the official opposition has remained the same: to provide Canadians with alternative policy options to those proposed by the government. This is a critical role that keeps our government accountable and fundamentally protects our political democracy.

The role of the opposition is simple. It is not meant to hinder the government from its purpose to legislate and create policies for the public or stifle important debate. It is meant to be calm and vigilant as it keeps the government accountable.

One of our greatest parliamentarians the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker, put it best in an address to the Empire Club of Canada in 1949. John Diefenbaker, then just a backbench member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, told his audience:

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.

Some believe that there is no room for an opposition within the Senate. The senator’s role would not be to present, in conjunction with colleagues in the House, a coherent alternative to the government. They see the Senate, first and foremost, as a debate club where senators will sometimes fine-tune government legislation to correct mistakes made by the Department of Justice.

We must remember that the Senate is a crucial component of our parliamentary system and that its purpose is not to be subservient to the government but, rather, to be fearless in reviewing legislation, offering criticism when necessary, providing a counterweight opinion and, most importantly, giving voice to regions and their minority groups. And, yes, senators should be able to adhere to the idea that the government in place should be replaced.

The smooth operation of Parliament depends not only upon the success of the House of Commons but also that of the Senate. After Motion No. 165 is adopted, we must still have a functional Senate. That is why it is imperative to review the motion that has been presented to us, particularly section 7, which proposes to create the role of “designated senator.”

In the Rules of the Senate of Canada, the critic of a bill is defined as follows:

The lead Senator responding to the sponsor of the bill. The critic is designated by the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government (if the sponsor is not a government member) or the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Opposition (if the sponsor is a government member). . . .

In addition to the sponsor and critic of a bill, Senator Gold’s motion adds designated senators to the list of senators who can speak for 45 minutes to the bill at hand.

On the surface, this proposal seems simple: It adds a limited number of senators who have more time to speak to a bill. In our current Senate, a maximum of three senators could be given the role of designated senator on each bill. However, this addition to our Rules has two major practical implications.

First, Senator Gold’s motion retains the current process to appoint the critic of a bill. In Appendix I of our Rules, in the definition of the term, it is said that:

The critic is designated by the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government (if the sponsor is not a government member) or Leader or Deputy Leader of the Opposition (if the sponsor is a government member). . . .

In our current Senate, several bills are sponsored by senators who are neither official members of the government nor the opposition.

In its current practice, for bills sponsored by any senator other than a Conservative, it is the opposition leader who appoints the critic. This should have been made clear in the motion, but it was not. Again, this is something that the Rules Committee would have caught and amended at committee. With Senator Gold’s decision to skip the committee process, the opportunity to change the definition of “critic of a bill” to reflect the current structure of our Parliament is lost.

Now that it is time allocated, I can no longer put forward an amendment to correct this. With the decision to invoke closure on debate, we can no longer amend Senator Gold’s motion, and another opportunity is lost.

The second issue with the creation of the role of designated senator is in relation to what Senator Quinn asked Senator Gold last week: Will these designated senators be treated like a critic and receive a special briefing?

Senator Gold could not answer this question. Most senators, other than members of the opposition caucus, may not have been the critic of a government bill or received a critic’s briefing. These briefings are an essential part of what a critic needs in order to serve as the critic of the bill. However, they are difficult to organize because of senators’ schedules and the challenge of gathering in the same room several officials, sometimes from several departments and, at times, more than one ministry. Imagine the burden of organizing three additional briefings, if requested by each designated senator for each bill, which he or she may be entitled to do. To be clear, our critic’s briefings will remain solely for our critics, as there are strategic elements that may be discussed or inferred from the discussion at the briefing.

Honourable colleagues, change is inevitable. We would be hopeless to resist it. Over the course of a century, we have witnessed parliamentary practices, traditions and customs evolve to reflect the needs of our growing and diverse nation. However, we cannot be casual observers as attempts to change the very core of our parliamentary system are made as though it were as simple as flicking a switch.

Where is our sober second thought? These proposed changes should have been studied by the Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I understand the history of what has happened in this chamber, but whether it is five years, nine years or more, the process is such that an omnibus motion such as the one before us — now time allocated — should have first gone to the Rules Committee so that the wordsmithing and other amendments and such could have been carefully considered. Senators should have been given the opportunity to fully debate and amend the motion where needed.

Honourable colleagues, let us once again reflect on the words of former prime minister John Diefenbaker, who said:

. . . Parliament must continue to be the custodian of freedom. To that end it must constantly change its procedure to meet the changing needs of a modern world but must be changeless in its concept and tradition. . . .

I regret that Senator Gold has decided, with his government motion and the process he chose for its adoption, not to follow our traditions. Thank you.

Honourable senators, listening to some of the debate here from my colleagues tonight, I get the impression that the words “Senate reform” and “evolution and change in the Senate” only began when Justin Trudeau came down from the mountains like Moses, parted the Red Sea and freed us from the shackles of this terrible old Senate, which was such a disaster and a terrible place; that we never made any changes or evolved before Senator Harder, Senator Lankin and all those appointed by Justin Trudeau to this chamber saved this institution from itself; and that Senate reform is something we’d never heard about and has nothing to do with people like Preston Manning, who was elected many years ago and came to Ottawa with his plate of Senate reform proposals. In fact, Senate reform is a debate that started in 1867, hours after John A. Macdonald appointed this place.

Senator Tannas, I agree with many of the thoughts you shared with the chamber today, but I disagree with some. You make the argument that it has somehow been an arduous process to arrive at the changes that we have evolved into today, and that we needed to allow or encourage the government to move a government motion — which even you say that you are not excited by — or time allocation, which you confirmed is not something you necessarily think is ideal, but claim was necessary because we weren’t moving quickly enough over the last nine years.

The truth is that when you analyze things — as you said in your own remarks — the government had no difficulty whatsoever doing its core business here. This is in large part, as you appropriately pointed out, because of a very cooperative opposition.

However, you forgot to highlight in your argument that the opposition was not only cooperative in ensuring that the democratic house was respected, but also cooperative between 2015 and 2019, when we were the majority in this place, and would work together to find a compromise in order to make some of the proposed changes that the Prime Minister was imposing upon the institution work. You were part of that.

I go back more than 9 or 10 years; I go back a number of years before. Change in this place is not something that began in 2015. We worked to ensure we were more accountable and transparent. We brought in broadcasting so that the public could see the work we do. We were the ones who instituted change in the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to make this place more accountable and transparent in the eyes of the public. We were the ones who brought in public disclosure of expenses of senators, and so on.

I do not want to go into all those changes; however, I do want to address changes since 2015. Today, we have the Canadian Senators Group, or CSG — and you are the leader of that group — and the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, because we were amenable to these changes. I was Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration when we were allocating budgets, as a majority opposition in this chamber, to allow for these reforms, evolutions and changes to take place.

I take exception when it is purported that we were dragged kicking and screaming into the Senate of today. We didn’t like some of the changes. We may have had vigorous debate on some of the changes, but we certainly embraced them and tried to make them work through cooperation and negotiation.

I’ve been here long enough to remember when Senator Greene and Senator Massicotte struck and initiated the reform proposals, and their objectives were very precise. Their objectives were trying to reduce the strength and presence of government in this institution and give more authority to independent, non-affiliated senators. Correct, Senator Tannas? They succeeded in some areas and failed in others because, you’re right, the process here is very cumbersome; it’s called democracy.

Over the last 9 years and going back the last 15 years, when some of the things were thwarted at the Rules Committee — of which I was a participant as well — it wasn’t always because of one side or another. It wasn’t always the Conservatives who agreed or disagreed in a homogenous way in regard to things. Very often, things failed in the last five or seven years at Rules because there wasn’t consensus even among the independent senators, putting aside the Conservative opposition. Again, colleagues, that is called democracy. There is a reason why in parliamentary institutions rules don’t change very easily — because they’re there for a reason. The Constitution doesn’t change very easily at the whim of someone.

If Prime Minister Trudeau wants to appoint like-minded individuals to vet candidates and appoint them to the Senate, good for him. If other prime ministers want to consult their dead cat, good for them.

The fact of the matter is that whatever you say in the debate, it doesn’t take away from the fact that in the Parliament of Canada Act, the prerogative to name a senator rests with the Prime Minister. It did before this process, it is now under this process, and it will continue to unless we find a consensus to change the Constitution. If we find a consensus, do that. By all means, I encourage you, write to the Prime Minister and have him open the Constitution. Let’s talk about real Senate reform at that point in time.

Senator Deacon brought up the fact that even in our scroll we have some cumbersome elements, which, in my opinion, makes this chamber unique. It makes it more democratic than any other. When we hear “stand, stand, stand” to the point the Speaker gets tired saying it, it might sound cumbersome and asinine to the general public watching it, but it is the ultimate privilege each and every one of us has, regardless of what leadership decide at scroll every morning.

We all know how powerful leadership is in this chamber. When Senator Massicotte and Senator Greene started talking about reform 15 years ago, it was because they wanted to reduce the strength and the omnipresence of leadership on both sides of the chamber and give more authority and flexibility to independent, non-affiliated senators. That was their objective.

Well, that “stand” that we all say, that is the ultimate privilege. On any given evening, you reserve the right to get up on the scroll, despite what Senator Plett and Senator Gold think, and you can speak on any issue. No one can deny you that right, and that should never be taken away. I’ll be happy to have that discussion and that debate with anyone at Rules or anyone else, by all means.

Is it frustrating or cumbersome for some of us because there is a given week when we’re not interested in what’s on the scroll and we want to get up and go home? Too bad, get up and go home. I don’t want my right or Senator MacDonald’s right to speak on any item on the agenda to be denied.

Senator Deacon was right on one thing in his comments: At the end of the day, once this motion passes — because all of you are obviously convinced that this is the way to go — I will be a very happy senator in a few months when I’m in government. This is a motion that strengthens government. I will be very happy, but I’m not opposing this motion for me while I’m in government. I’m opposing it for each and every one of you because maybe down the line some of you will decide you don’t want to be independent anymore and you want to be part of the opposition or part of government. When that decision happens and this toothpaste has left the tube, it will be too late. You’re not putting it back in. There will be a number of us, if we are sitting on the government side, who will find this very appealing.

Prime Minister Harper gave the incoming Trudeau government a gift: It was 23 vacancies. Many of you have become beneficiaries of that gift. I can tell you Justin Trudeau, with Motion No. 165, has given this side a gift. Thank you very much. I’m not going to enjoy it in the next 18 months, but I will going forward; I can assure you.

Senator Petitclerc, this debate tonight is not about voting for or against government legislation or being independent or not independent, not at all. The whole debate tonight is about granting powers and authorities to a caucus group that has been appointed by the sitting Prime Minister the same rights and authorities that the official opposition holds. Any constitutional parliamentary evaluator or professor who will look at this will scratch their head and ask, “Why would a vast majority group of independent senators appointed by the government, by the sitting Prime Minister, demand the same rights and privileges and tools in the tool box that the opposition has?” They’ll all come to the conclusion it is because they want to water down the strength of the opposition.

Colleagues, I’ll just end on the following: Motion No. 165 has nothing to do with the reform discussions that we’ve had in this institution since I’ve arrived and before I arrived. I’m not that arrogant to believe that reform started when I got here. I just continued a process, and we’re continuing a process of evolution that started many years ago.

But let’s be clear. All of you in your heart of hearts know this. Motion No. 165 was crafted by people in the Prime Minister’s Office, people in the Leader of the Government’s office, and I’ll tell you why — because there’s nothing in this motion that strengthens independence, independent senators or the opposition.

The only thing it does is it maintains the same strengths, privileges, rights and tools in the political tool box the government has always had, dilutes a little bit the authority of the opposition, gives absolutely no consideration to the truly non‑affiliated, none. The only people who gave consideration to the truly non-affiliated were on this side, where we fought for them to get spaces on committees, where we gave up our spots to let them get on committees. Since they arrived in 2015, in the last nine years of great reform, ever since Moses came down from the hill, I haven’t seen any non-affiliated senators having any more authority than they had before.

On the contrary, Senator Tannas, if you remember, we didn’t move as a government when we had a majority without the acquiescence of the non-affiliated senators. There were a handful. And Senator Carignan, the first people he went to consult were them.

Honourable senators, I know this motion is a foregone conclusion, but I wanted to express my views on this. Clearly, I assure you — and I’m not being clairvoyant — we are going to have these debates in five or six years, and I want to be clear on the record that this is all because you thought this was a good idea. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I am not going to take a long time, and I’m not speaking like former Senator Baker, who would then go on to take a long time.

I don’t want to engage in the content debate that has gone on. A lot of senators have put a lot of effort and thought into their speeches. We have heard a wide variety of views. I take great exception to some of the things I’ve heard that I don’t think are accurate. We’ve had and heard and we can move to make a decision at this point in time.

What I want to do, though, is thank everybody who has contributed to this. Many people have gone back in history and thanked some of the people who have been, in the more recent years, the movers and shakers around thinking about Senate reform. I don’t go back as far as Senator Housakos, so he will know more names, but I know that when I arrived here, there was much work under way already.

I know that people referred to and thanked Senator Massicotte and Senator Greene for their efforts. I want to do the same. I sat on the Modernization and Rules committees as the first two committees I joined. I appreciated the tutelage of Senator McInnis and Senator Fraser during those periods of time. I worked and had long discussions with Senator Frum as a colleague on the Rules Committee, and we didn’t agree on some things, but they were respectful debates.

I believe that we can have a discussion in this place about how to continue down the road of making it more reflective of an institution that brings added value, and not an institution that — I won’t say ever that we’ve only reflected what goes on in the other place, but that it is predominated by what goes on in the other place.

When I say that, I have to say honestly — and I’ve expressed this to senators across the way, but I won’t name names because I might provoke them — that I believe there is a role for an organized, structured and effective opposition. I believe we need that.

When I hear senators stand and say, “There are many in this chamber who don’t think that there should be an opposition,” to me that’s not reflective of the discussions I’ve had. I know that there are a few who think that. They are the minority, and I don’t share that view. Quite frankly, I’m a little bit tired of being told all the time — by some people — about what I think, and what I’m committed to, or what I do, and that I am a closet Liberal because I was appointed by a Liberal. To me, all of that is nonsense and noise, but the noise is okay.

What I would like to see us do, though, is aspire to have conversations with the tone that we have now finally reached at the end of these discussions tonight, which lets us discuss what could enhance the value added to Canadians of this chamber — bringing independent voices to bear in a structure where there is an effective government representation and an effective opposition representation. Those things shouldn’t be lost, but we should be augmenting it. We should be using this opportunity to augment.

I believe very strongly, and, in fact, I might even be bringing a motion forward to suggest that we have a collaborative process of re-establishing the kind of orientation that — may she rest in peace — Senator McCoy spent so much time and effort on. I learned a lot. You will see that despite the allegations from some that I am some kind of puppet being controlled by the other place, I am someone who believes strongly that we are not competitive with the other place, and that it is not the place of the Senate to defeat government legislation — unless, within the 2014 constitutional reference, it is not constitutional, it is not Charter compliant, or it has untold and unrealized regional impacts, or impacts on Indigenous peoples, on minority populations or on gender minority populations.

I really believe that, and, in my first days here, I watched this opposition stand up half of their majority caucus in this place on a budget vote — I watched Senator Plett, who was the whip at the time, count the numbers as it was going on, and then signal to the others who then stood and abstained so that they didn’t defeat. That’s responsible opposition. I think a lot of rhetoric is irresponsible sometimes, but I can live with that. I’ve been in opposition and in government in a provincial legislature, so I understand it.

But it’s thanks to the efforts of people like Senator Massicotte and Senator Greene, the Senate Modernization Committee and people like — before I arrived here — Senator Ringuette. I mentioned Senator McCoy already and Senator Wallace, who were charting the way — in their own way — of leaving partisan caucuses before many of the rest of us arrived here. I think there are lots of people to thank.

I want to thank Senator Harder and the Government Representative Office who worked to start populating some ideas. I think the idea of a programming committee has devolved to leaders, and that works sometimes, but sometimes it doesn’t. I think we can talk about structuring our debates in a way that we can have good, thoughtful debates so that we can move through. I think there are so many positive ideas.

I want to end by saying thank you for the honour of being asked to come and work on a time-limited, seconded basis — I know secondments don’t exist here, but I insisted on that word to make it very clear. I wanted to be part of this effort, and I want to thank those with whom I had the opportunity to talk with their groups, or with their leadership or those in committee leadership roles, to consult about what a consensus could be. Bringing that consensus forward is something that I feel pride in, but I feel honour more than anything to be asked to do that; I truly appreciate that.

I want to say thank you to the efforts of the Government Representative Office stepping me out of here. The staff secretariat and their work has been so exemplary and so respectful. I think people won’t believe it, but it’s respectful of the role of the opposition, as well as the time required and the need to ensure to not bring forward things that others — when we did the consultation — wanted to see included. It’s not everybody; there was disagreement. But it’s very respectful of the role of the opposition. You may not believe that. I see the look of doubt on my good friend in the back row over there with whom I have worked on a couple of different committees. However, I want to tell you there is no one more forceful in defending that than the two senators who are in the Government Representative Office. The work that — she has not been mentioned at all — Senator LaBoucane-Benson has done on this is tremendous as well.

I want to thank Senator Gold. There has been a lot of impugning of motive and insinuating — I don’t want to go into a negative space here. I have worked side by side with a senator who I have always respected, but whose behaviour has commanded in me an even greater respect, and I want to thank him for that.

I want to thank all of you for this nature of debate, and plead with you that we leave this and move on to the next stage to have some meaningful discussions about how we accomplish the goals of the opposition to ensure that — even when it’s someone else other than you, if that’s where we end up — there’s an effective, structured opposition that can take advantage of the tremendous talent and desire to bring different and representative thinking that’s not just in a duopoly, and that allows for a broader debate, and also allows for not just polarized debate, but also discourse that moves us toward integrative thinking. It’s not just about compromise, but also building breakthrough solutions on things for the benefit of all Canadians.

It’s an honour to be in this institution, and it’s an honour to have worked on this package. I know that there are hard feelings that come from this, but I think that we can rise above that, and we can do some good work going forward. I make my plea to all of you to be a constructive part of that on a go-forward basis. Thank you very much.

Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.

I see two senators rising.

Pursuant to rule 7-4(5)(c) and the order adopted on September 21, 2022, the vote is deferred to 4:15 p.m. tomorrow with the bells to ring at 4 p.m.

I move the adjournment of the Senate.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Is leave granted?

I’ll ask again. Is leave granted?

I’m sorry, but Senator Carignan is asking for leave to adjourn the Senate. Is leave granted?

Leave is not granted.

Bills, third reading.