Your Honour, I wish to rise on a point of order.

As per the definition section within the Rules of the Senate, a “point of order” is defined as:

A complaint or question raised by a Senator who believes that the rules, practices or procedures of the Senate have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the proceedings, either in the chamber or in committee.

I believe this matter certainly falls within that definition. Yesterday, at 6 p.m., our proceedings were interrupted — as is the usual practice — because you, Your Honour, had seen the clock for the evening suspension. The question was put to the chamber as to whether there was agreement to not see the clock. As noted by Senator Moncion when she subsequently rose to address the situation, I said no twice, and yet it was ruled that leave was granted.

This inconsistency was reflected when Senator Dasko, who had the floor at the time, hesitated to continue in her remarks as she certainly appeared to be among those senators who had heard me say, “No.” Your Honour then granted leave and put the question to the chamber for a second time on whether there was agreement not to see the clock. For a second time, I said, “No.” Yet, for a second time, leave was granted and debate continued at that point.

Your Honour, the Rules of the Senate are quite clear on this matter. The definition section defines “evening suspension” as:

The interruption of the sitting that normally occurs between 6 and 8 p.m. In some situations provided for in the Rules the suspension does not take place. In other cases, the Senate may decide, with leave, not to suspend over this period, which is often referred to as “not seeing the clock”.

I stress the words “with leave” because they are the crucial point in question. Furthermore, within the definitions section of the Rules of the Senate, “leave of the Senate” is defined as:

An agreement of the Senate, without dissent expressed, to take an action involving the suspension of a rule or usual practice without notice.

Your Honour, based on these definitions, our rules are quite clear that any dissent regarding leave, whether singular or collective, results in leave not being granted. As such, leave was not granted at 6 p.m. last night and the Senate should have been recognized as seeing the clock, thus suspending proceedings for the evening suspension time.

Your Honour, I currently share my physical location in the Senate Chamber with more than 20 senators, and while I do not presume to speak for any of my honourable colleagues, it is incontrovertible that several of us on several occasions have raised concerns about not being seen and not being heard when we try to claim our right to speak. It is evident that it can be difficult to hear and see senators who are further from the Speaker’s chair and the table.

Your Honour, I rise today to appeal to your wisdom and authority to provide direction and clarity so that last night’s unfortunate situation can be avoided in the future and so that there can be equal opportunities for all senators to be seen and heard in this chamber. Thank you. Meegwetch.