Honourable senators, this motion does not go far enough in advancing the goal of a less partisan, more independent Senate, so there is more work to be done following its passage. After all, the point of a more independent, less partisan Senate is not just about how we do our work and what makes us feel good. It is much more about the credibility and legitimacy of our institution for generations to come.

I’m not so naive as to think that a Senate made up entirely of independent members will, in and of itself, make Canadians love the Upper House, but I am sure that a return to partisan duopoly will do the opposite. Let’s pass this motion quickly and use it as the basis to further modernize and improve the Senate of Canada.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Government Motion No. 165. This motion outlines significant changes to the Senate Rules.

Make no mistake, the purpose of this motion is to try to destroy the Conservative opposition in the Senate. That has been this government’s aim in this place for the past eight and a half years. Senator Gold suggests that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his office had nothing to do with this motion. He wants us to believe it came out of his own “non-affiliated” head. But why, then, was this proposal introduced as a government motion by the Leader of the Government in the Senate? There is serious weight behind this initiative.

And why now? The Trudeau government is introducing these wide-ranging changes to the Senate Rules in its scandal-plagued dying days. The Liberals are flailing in the polls, and this is their last-ditch attempt to cement their power before the government changes. It is not a coincidence that the government is ramming through this proposal before the Senate now, when Prime Minister Trudeau has appointed more than 80 senators and our opposition Conservative caucus is down to 13 — and soon to be 12 — members.

The changes to the Rules in this motion are not generally new proposals. They have been suggested and studied by the Senate many times before, in Senator Harder’s “discussion” papers, through the Senate Modernization Committee and through motions introduced by Senators Woo and Tannas. The government has tried and failed to push these changes through the Senate Rules Committee. That didn’t work, so now the government is trying to force them through the Senate Chamber, where a vast majority of senators have been appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau.

The fallacy on which the Trudeau government has based its entire dismantling of the Senate structure is that Trudeau‑appointed senators are independent and non-partisan. In fact, within the ranks of these Senate appointees are maximum donors to the Liberal Party, a former 20-year Liberal MP, a former Liberal premier, Liberal Party executive members, Trudeau Foundation alumni and even the former transition head of the Trudeau Government.

The so-called independent Senate appointment panels aren’t independent either. These panels are also filled with more people named to the position by the Trudeau PMO, or Prime Minister’s Office: more Liberal donors, Trudeau Foundation alumni, et cetera. At this point, the sometimes empty panels don’t even bother to tell Canadians who’s recommending their suggested appointments. The PMO picks the Senate appointment panels and the PMO picks the senators. The PMO has even admitted they use the Liberal Party database, Liberalist, for their Senate appointment short lists.

It is on this backdrop of smoke and mirrors that the Trudeau government has proposed this motion, which would create an entrenched Trudeau government-appointed senator majority and trample the rights of the opposition, whose stated duty is to challenge the government.

This government motion, Motion No. 165, will dilute the power of the opposition by giving all other Senate groups the same powers — for example, equal speaking time limits for leaders, time allocation, agreement on bells for votes, et cetera.

In the Westminster system, the government’s role is to propose and try to pass their policy agenda. The opposition’s role is to oppose it, so that all aspects of every piece of legislation are carefully considered from all viewpoints. This is especially important in the Senate, where our role is to provide sober second thought before legislation is passed into law.

The other groups in the Senate don’t really have a parliamentary role. In fact, the Senate is now made up of a huge majority of senators who were appointed by Justin Trudeau. These groups claim they are also opposition, although 95% of the time they vote with the Trudeau government. Let’s remember — fundamentally, “opposition” means “to oppose.”

Senators appointed by a previous prime minister obviously don’t have a similar allegiance to the sitting Prime Minister, and we form the opposition as the Conservative caucus. But most of the senators in the other groups — the Independent Senators Group, the Canadian Senators Group and the Progressive Senate Group — were appointed by Justin Trudeau, meaning he is essentially appointing his own opposition. Honourable senators, this is a perversion of democracy and upends more than 150 years of Canadian parliamentary tradition.

According to the current Rules, for most speeches in the Senate, the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition have unlimited time to speak and take questions. This is because the government leader explains the reasons why a piece of legislation is important to the government’s agenda, and the government is held accountable by answering questions about it. The Senate Leader of the Opposition gets unlimited speaking time to challenge the government, critique the legislation and ensure the legislation is the best that it can be. Under the rule changes proposed by the government in this motion, the leader of the Independent Senators Group — currently the largest Senate group — would also receive unlimited time to speak and take questions, while other group leaders would each get 45 minutes. For what purpose? What are those senators’ parliamentary roles?

Traditionally, senators appointed by a prime minister serve in his or her government caucus. However, even if they don’t, it is reasonable to expect that senators appointed by a prime minister would be ideologically aligned with that prime minister’s political viewpoint. The Senate is, after all, a political institution.

Under the current system, senators appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau are ideologically aligned but don’t sit in the government national caucus and therefore don’t know the intricacies of how or why that legislative policy was developed. What are the leaders of these groups going to talk about for 45 minutes or for an unlimited time? They can’t inform on behalf of the government; they can’t answer questions on behalf of the government. What is the purpose? If the Independent Senators Group leader is actually acting as the government leader, then just give her the job. It hearkens back to the time when it was unclear who was the real Senate government leader, Senator Harder or Senator Woo.

Similarly, Senator Gold’s motion would give senators from the non-government and non-opposition benches the label of “designated senators” on bills to mimic the role of critics on legislation. Under this change, a designated senator from every group — not limited to five — would get the opportunity to deliver a 45-minute speech at second and third reading of every bill. Of course, as Senator Quinn noted previously, the government won’t give a briefing to the designated senators as they would for the critic of the bill, so what exactly would they have to talk about for 45 minutes?

Senate rule changes have never been made unilaterally in more than 150 years. This has always — rightfully — been done by consensus. It is appalling that the Senate’s government leader is now trying to dance around the definition of “consensus” to essentially destroy the opposition. The Rules Committee, where I’m the Deputy Chair, recently studied the issue of equity of groups. The Trudeau-appointed senators failed to achieve consensus on several issues, so the government is now circumventing the Rules Committee and bringing these contentious issues to the Senate through this motion instead.

Our Conservative opposition members of the Rules Committee did, in fact, agree to many minor rule changes. We tried to separate out these agreed-upon changes from the larger controversial issues which did not have consensus. We offered to move ahead with the implementation of these smaller changes. I actually tried two or three times at Rules Committee. But Trudeau-appointed senators refused to agree. They insisted on all or nothing. That was 18 months ago. Now Senator Gold is trying to find wiggle room around the term “consensus,” claiming it does not require unanimity. The Trudeau government is attempting a last-ditch effort to change the Rules during their final days in power. This is their attempt to destroy the opposition, which is a key part of our democracy that has existed for 156 years in Canada and is a group that plays a critical, historical role to challenge the government.

This government motion would also change the Senate Rules regarding written questions submitted to the government. Senator Gold wants us to believe that this is the government delivering accountability. However, as with most Trudeau government manœuvres in Parliament, this motion will deliver no such thing. The government will limit written questions to only four per senator. They say this is similar to the House of Commons Standing Orders. The thing is, the opposition in the Senate only has 13 senators; the opposition in the House of Commons has about 120 MPs. Furthermore, in the House of Commons the government has 45 days to answer, but in the Senate they would have 60 days — with no explanation given as to why senators are treated like second-class citizens. The House of Commons and the Senate are supposed to be equal and complementary chambers.

This motion gives the government the option of not even giving an answer to a written question so long as they provide an explanation for the lack of an answer. Lord knows the government can be creative with that. This is just one other way for them to dodge accountability. In fact, the process the government is proposing for written questions provides an incentive for them to delay providing a response for as long as possible. When a senator receives a reply, they can submit another question — to a maximum of four. Therefore, the longer it takes the government to reply, the fewer questions they will have to answer. It defeats the purpose of imposing a time limit for the government response in the first place.

This motion proposes that if an answer is not tabled within the time limit, the matter would be passed to the Senate Rules Committee. Once again, I ask, “Why?” The Rules Committee certainly wouldn’t be able to provide a meaningful answer to a question on content. In the House of Commons, these issues are passed on to the relevant standing committee, where committee members would at least have a fighting chance of seeking or receiving a response. In both the Senate and the House of Commons, there is no real recourse if the answer is meaningless or wrong, as with the answer I recently received and raised in Senate Question Period.

This Trudeau government motion will also have serious consequences on the process for invoking time allocation, already a drastic government tool for truncating debate. According to Motion No. 165, during a government motion on invoking time allocation, each of the group leaders will get 20 minutes to speak and take questions. The entire debate is capped at two-and-a-half hours. That means that the other 100 senators not in leadership positions will barely have time to speak at all. This runs counter to the fundamental principle of the Senate that all senators are equal. Further, this will reduce the time for the government leader, who is proposing time allocation, to answer questions from other senators. This allows the government to dodge accountability for limiting debate.

There are many problems with the definitions in this motion. First, section 23(g) of the motion states that the Leader of the Government in the Senate is to be “. . . appointed by the Government.” However, this is not an order-in-council appointment; the Senate government leader is appointed by the Prime Minister, not by the government. If they can’t even get that right in this motion, why should we trust them to change the Rules of the Senate?

The proposed definition of the Government Whip or liaison is also confusing. Under the existing Rules of the Senate, the “Government Whip” is currently described as responsible for maintaining quorum of “government party senators” in the chamber and at votes, and is generally responsible for “. . . managing the substitution of government members on committees.” Given that there are only three members of the Government Representative Office and they don’t sit on any committees, I expect those duties are next to non-existent. Under Senator Gold’s motion, the only change is to add the word “outreach.” What exactly does that mean? Even the former deputy government leader admitted in Rules Committee that she could not define the Government Whip’s or liaison’s role of outreach. It means they “liaise with other senators,” she said — as do we all, honourable senators. What’s the difference? We don’t know, and neither does the Trudeau government. Why are we enshrining this redefinition in legislation? What does this newly styled government liaison actually do in this role aside from walking down the aisle before a vote?

It will be interesting to see if the Trudeau-appointed senators are as committed to supporting the government and these measures to destroy the opposition when it is their turn to serve on the opposition benches. They may just find it gives them a completely different perspective.

Our parliamentary traditions have evolved based on the very important role the opposition and government play in our Westminster system. Our system was established that way because it works. It allows democratic input and creates the best legislation possible as it moves through the Senate. We should not overturn our fundamental structures simply to placate one prime minister, particularly in his final days of clinging to power. Therefore, I hope you will join me in voting against this draconian omnibus motion.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise in support of this motion introduced by Senator Gold. I will speak on three issues: first, the importance of Motion No. 165; second, the principle of equality between senators and the issue of non‑affiliated senators; and finally, the role of the Rules Committee in the process of modernizing our rules and procedure.

I won’t repeat what has already been said about the content of Motion No. 165, since I only have 15 minutes to speak. However, I would like to make it clear that this motion is very important to ensure greater sustainability for the changes that have been made over the past 10 years regarding the necessary existence of a number of groups and caucuses in the Senate.

In this motion, most of these proposed changes to the Rules are a complement to the amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act made in 2022 to recognize additional Senate groups and federal statutory law. They also relate to earlier reforms toward a more independent Senate, including the recognition in the Rules in 2017 of groups not affiliated with a political party. This was a crucial step toward the Senate becoming more independent and less partisan. This change put an end to the duopoly Senate which existed since 1867, composed of a Liberal and a Conservative caucus.

Notably, the Liberal and the Conservative parties served in the Senate as the opposition when the Bloc and the NDP served as the opposition in the other place. This shows that a duopoly in the Senate does not reflect the diverse views of Canadian society.

The 2017 rule change, together with a more transparent appointment process, spoke to Canadians who don’t identify as partisans, enhancing independent voices in the Senate of Canada. Also, it helped the Senate to have more groups, countering the risk of majoritarianism.

Honourable senators, let me remind you that the Fathers of Confederation, when they adopted a bicameral Parliament, took inspiration from the British philosopher, economist and political scientist John Stuart Mill, who wrote Considerations on Representative Government in 1861. I can assure you that this book is worth reading, even while on vacation.

He wrote:

The consideration which tells most, in my judgment, in favour of two Chambers . . . is the evil effect produced upon the mind of any holder of power, whether an individual or an assembly, by the consciousness of having only themselves to consult.

Such a situation can be exacerbated in a unicameral Parliament. So, this is one reason why the Senate exists. It gives some assurance to minority populations and regions that they can be heard through the Senate. But the tyranny of the majority, as John Stuart Mill put it, can also exist in bicameral Parliament.

Motion No. 165, along with the previous changes and the amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, makes it possible to prevent it.

Although the purpose of bicameralism is to prevent the tyranny of the majority, the mere existence of a Senate is not enough. The Senate must also be independent.

But what does an independent Senate really mean? In a few words, it means it is not controlled by the party in power, and particularly by the Prime Minister’s Office. It does not mean that the Senate or senators can do whatever they want. An independent Senate must show restraint and respect the democratic preferences of Canadians and the elected chamber while protecting the interests of minorities and regions at the same time. This has been well explained by the Supreme Court in 2014, as well as by senator Ian Shugart, who left us too soon, but with this vital message.

Unfortunately, in Canada, as documented by political scientists, it has been tempting for the party in power to control the Senate caucus affiliated with it and impose its party line. This was done through the appointment process and through a system of fear and favour and, ultimately, through majority votes under party discipline. Thus, the checks and balances of John Stuart Mill could be negated. When the Senate has at least three groups, it becomes more difficult for the party in power to exercise control. This is one landmark innovation of the Senate reform of the Forty-second Parliament.

Honourable senators, especially those of you who have been sworn in since 2016, I urge you not to forget that majoritarianism has been a real practice in the federal Parliament since the early days of Confederation. Successive governing parties have always sought to secure the majority of votes in the Senate and, above all, to impose a party line. It’s not surprising that the Senate was seen as the institution that rubber-stamped the decisions of the other place. The Senate must not go back to its old ways.

The Senate’s most recent existential crisis, which began in 2013 and which I watched with astonishment, was the culmination of the ruling party’s strategy to control the Senate. You have to have lived it to believe it. This control strategy was documented by Justice Vaillancourt in his ruling in the Duffy case.

Therefore, Motion No. 165 is very important in the process of modernizing the Senate, but it is not the end of the process. Other rules need to be changed to help all senators to perform their constitutional duties.

The Senate needs to address the issue of equality among senators, including non-affiliated senators. On this point, let me remind you of this chamber’s debates in 2015 and 2016 when senator John Wallace, appointed by Prime Minister Harper, introduced a motion to mandate the Rules Committee to study this specific issue.

In summary, Senator Wallace proposed that the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized to examine and report on the practices of the Senate and the rules relating to committees, in order to assess whether all senators are, in fact, treated equally, fairly and equitably, no matter if they are sitting as members of the government, as members of the opposition, as members of recognized parties, or as independent or non-affiliated senators. They all should have the same reasonable opportunity to contribute fully to the Senate through their committee work.

His motion also highlighted the importance of our committee seat selection process in this context. At the time, I believed that we, the Senate, should first focus on amending the Rules so that independent groups would be recognized. That was done in 2017 and will be reinforced by this motion.

But I think that now the time has come to reintroduce Senator Wallace’s motion.

Finally, let me speak briefly on the role of the Rules Committee. But before I do, let me tell you this anecdote. In March 2015, I had the privilege to accompany Speaker Nolin in London with a few other senators to visit the Lords Chamber. Charles Robert, the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the Rules Committee, accompanied us. I asked him why it takes so long for the Rules Committee to propose any changes on our rules and procedures. He said, “Because the Rules Committee tries to reach consensus.” It makes sense to me. It has always made sense to me.

Indeed, I repeat, I believe that the Rules Committee needs to try honestly to reach consensus. But what if it cannot? It could happen that the committee is not able to reach a consensus involving all groups. When that happens and when leaders clearly cannot agree either, then the Senate as a whole has to decide for the good of the country.

As I said earlier, the content of Motion No. 165 was studied in the Rules Committee, which reported to the Senate in March 2023. The fifth report did not include any recommendations because the committee failed to reach consensus. Some items were strongly opposed by the Conservative members of the committee.

Also, I need to say that when all groups and caucuses in the committee agreed to study the motion concerning the equality of groups, it was not with the intent to vote on the issue.

From the start of this study, many suspected that it would be impossible to reach consensus on all items. The objective of our study was to clarify the items on which the Senate could find consensus. One could say that the Rules Committee did a kind of pre-study of Motion No. 165. In other words, the committee decided to get a clear picture of the issue and present it to the Senate.

I decided not to call votes on different items because I respected the committee’s original will. A battle on the matter would have compromised the future work of the committee in order to produce a report of the committee tabled under Other Business that would remain vulnerable to a filibuster in the chamber.

In my view, in exploring our procedures, the Rules Committee should try to reach a reasonable consensus. That means the members should try to work toward common ground in good faith. When consensus is not possible, its role is to enlighten the chamber on the different possibilities. This is what has been done in the fifth report. Then, it is for the Senate as a whole to decide.

I believe Canadians expect more of us and aren’t looking for a “game of thrones” in the Senate. That is why I am happy that Senator Gold has commenced this transparent debate after years of frustrated efforts to have our Rules match the ideals of our constitutional role. The debate over power and equity is not a zero-sum game. Indeed, what is at stake is the independence of the Senate from the control by the party in power over our decisions, for the good of all Canadians. The public will be the true winner in achieving a better Senate.

I am happy that this motion was introduced by the government because at the end of the day, in an appointed Senate such as ours, Canadians cannot vote us out, as is the case in most senates around the world. If the Senate cannot be made accountable to the voters, who is to assure them that this institution can accomplish its role of sober second thought for all Canadians? To ask this question is, maybe, to answer it.

In closing, let me remind you that the development of Motion No. 165 took many years of hard work, dialogue and committee study. This includes the work of the Special Senate Committee on Modernization and the Rules Committee, as well as discussions in working groups and debates in this chamber. I want to give special thanks to Senator Gold and Senator Lankin for their hard work on this.

In my view, the time has now finally come to do the right thing and vote.

Would you take a question, senator?

With regard to time limits or unlimited speaking time, you know that some people exercise their rights wisely, while others abuse them. Sometimes you may think the rights are being used wisely, and other times you may think they’re being abused. Does that justify changing the rule? Let me give you an example. We often see omnibus bills. We have seen 1,000-page bills amending 30 or 40 laws at once.

Do you really think that 10 minutes on a very specific point is enough time for a senator to argue their position on an omnibus bill? That’s why we need certain individuals — in this case, the party or group leaders who have unlimited speaking time — to highlight certain important elements, which another senator can’t do in 10 minutes.

Don’t you think that if a future government, perhaps one led by Mr. Poilievre — I know you’re not keen on that scenario, but it may happen — chooses to introduce an omnibus bill . . . You won’t have time to cover everything, and then you’ll say it’s appalling to not have enough time to critique the bill properly. There might be 200 amendments that make no sense, but you’ll only have time to discuss four of them.

Don’t you think that getting rid of unlimited speaking time makes the opposition less effective as a critic on legislation?

With your indulgence, Senator Miville-Dechêne, that wasn’t really the question. It’s what you’re saying, and because of how you described unlimited speaking time for the Leader of the Opposition. You called it a weapon. It is not a weapon. It is a right to express a point of view. It is not a weapon. It is the democratic exercise of a right to ensure that all aspects are discussed. For example, some positive changes have been made to the Rules in relation to a number of provisions and implications. Sometimes, these things take time. It is not a weapon. It is a democratic right, and it must remain unchanged. It troubles me to hear you denigrating this right.

I’m sorry, Senator Miville-Dechêne, but your time has expired.

Honourable senators, I’m going to share remarks and build on some of the other questions and commentary that I’ve made on this subject.

I want to start by saying that members of the House of Commons and senators are, in fact, members of Parliament. We should be treated equally when it comes to receiving a response to written questions and delayed answers. When a valid question isn’t responded to in a satisfactory manner, there is a mechanism on the other side known as the Adjournment Proceedings, or perhaps better known as the “late show” — and, no, it doesn’t involve Conan O’Brien — which is available at 6 p.m. every day except on Fridays. This provides a member of the House of Commons with the opportunity to give notice of their intention to seek a more wholesome answer. Being aware of this is important for us, because in response to my question concerning a 45-day response time, Senator Gold noted that there was no other mechanism available to members of the House of Commons for delayed answers to questions posed during a Question Period. In fact, the above-noted mechanism provides them with that avenue in a very timely fashion compared to what I’m proposing in my amendment.

Speaking from experience, having been involved with the late show as a bureaucrat, those turnaround times could be in a matter of hours — not days, weeks, months or years.

The Privy Council Office, or PCO, currently has an internal 45-day deadline for responding to questions from either house. However, the lack of a consequence in the Senate means that the internal 45-day timeline is often missed, where some questions have taken over three years to receive an answer. This is a matter of basic respect. Not answering questions in a reasonable time frame impacts us as parliamentarians, making our job that much more difficult.

Now, I support many elements of the government’s proposal, but the 60-day time frame is inconsistent with existing policy and is somewhat arbitrary. Voting yes on this amendment does not result in the motion failing. If time allocation is moved while this item is up for debate, it simply means that there will be a vote on the amendment followed by a vote on the main motion. I repeat, this amendment will not cause the modernization package to fail.

I fear that some honourable colleagues may feel that should this amendment be adopted, the rule change package will fail. Others may feel that allowing for one amendment may result in many other amendments being proposed, including some that may be considered dilatory. I believe if other amendments are proposed — and if some amendments are, in fact, dilatory — not only will senators have the power through votes to accept or reject them, but Senator Gold has, indeed, the option to use time allocation, which then prevents other amendments from being tabled. I think it’s fair and reasonable for some flexibility in this to be entertained as proposed amendments may, in fact, strengthen government Motion No. 165. After all, these are our Rules.

I share those thoughts because I’ve had a number of colleagues in this chamber come to me and say, “I support what you’re trying to achieve, but I fear in doing the change, the whole package will fail or we may get frivolous amendments put forward.” I wanted to share this with you because I don’t believe that it should prevent our ability to bring forward changes that may, in fact, strengthen it and be more respectful of us as parliamentarians because that’s what we are.