Business of the Senate
Speaker’s Ruling
April 25, 2023
Honourable senators, I am ready to rule on Senator Plett’s point of order. Let me start by thanking all of you for your input on this important matter. Since this notice was given last Thursday, I have been reviewing a range of issues relating to our time allocation process, and my ruling is the result of my own reflection and your arguments.
I believe that there are, in essence, two issues involved in the point of order: first, the procedural requirement to indicate a lack of agreement; and, second, the fundamental issue of whether Senator Gold, as Government Representative, can initiate this process at all.
On the first point — the matter of agreement and consultations — rule 7-2(1) states that, “At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of the recognized parties have failed to agree to allocate time to conclude an adjourned debate …” on an item of Government Business.
In terms of any requirements for consultations or agreement, the wording of rule 7-2(1) is quite specific. The test is whether there has been a failure to agree to allocate time. A ruling of September 20, 2000, dealt with this concern. Speaker Molgat noted that the senator making the statement must be taken at their word. The Speaker went on to say: “All I have before me is a motion stating that they have reached no agreement at this point, the rule has been followed and the terms have been set out.” This was sufficient for debate on the time allocation motion to go ahead. The same analysis applies in the current case.
Having dealt with this initial issue, I will turn to the second concern in the point of order, which is the basic issue of whether Senator Gold can even initiate — or has a role in — the processes under Chapter 7 of the Rules.
As made clear in a ruling of May 19, 2016, regarding government positions in the Senate, Senator Gold, as Government Representative, is indeed Government Leader. The Government Representative routinely exercises the rights and responsibilities of that position.
Appendix I of the Rules defines the Government Leader as “The Senator who acts as the head of the Senators belonging to the Government party.” The very definition of the Government Leader thus makes clear that the senator occupying that position has a role that is analogous to, if not equivalent of, that of a party leader.
Appendix I recognizes that the definitions it contains are inherently flexible and depend on context, specifically stating that the definitions are to be interpreted in light of circumstances. The procedures for time allocation, which were introduced into the Rules in 1991, exist to allow the government the option of requesting, when it thinks appropriate, that the Senate agree to set limits to the duration of debate on an item of Government Business.
In light of the basic objective of the time allocation process, and the definitions in the Rules, it is appropriate that Senator Gold can play the role envisioned in Chapter 7 for the Government Leader.
It is also important to underscore that the government is not able to unilaterally impose time allocation on the Senate. Time allocation is proposed by the government, and the Senate itself must agree, or not, to the motion. Allowing the motion to go forward can, therefore, be understood as broadening the range of options open to the Senate. The government would have to explain and defend its proposal, which senators can then accept or reject. If senators reject the government’s proposal, debate continues according to normal practices.
In summary, honourable senators, the intent of Chapter 7 favours allowing debate on Senator Gold’s proposal to continue, which would widen the range of choices available to the Senate, and fits within the definitions contained in our Rules. The ruling is, therefore, that the motion is in order and debate can continue.
This is truly a dark day for the Senate of Canada.
With respect, Your Honour, you said that the government leader says — or you refer to belonging to the government party. Senator Gold, of course, does not belong to the government party. By his own admission, he doesn’t belong to the government party.
I am extremely disappointed that this ruling would have come down without it being in writing. Clearly, this was — please, senators. I respect your right to your opinion. Have respect for mine. Except for yours, possibly. I’m getting a little tired.
Your Honour, I have the utmost respect for you, even though I may struggle with respect for others, but I want to have the utmost respect for this chamber and everybody here. And just because we, as the opposition, have a role to play as the opposition, which Senator Lankin has been a part of and, when she was a member of the opposition, did what this opposition party does, and she has a very short memory.
I never said —
Nevertheless, Your Honour, I have the utmost respect for you personally. I said I would try to respect your ruling. I will. However, at this point I will also exercise my right, Your Honour, and with the highest deference to your position, I find it sad that just weeks before your retirement, you have been put into a position that I personally don’t believe — would you like to speak, Senator Lankin? I will sit down and give you the floor.
To speak on your behalf? Absolutely.
You would speak on my behalf. And you will put —
Your Honour, I ask that Senator Lankin refrain from interrupting me while I am speaking. I think this is a serious issue. She may not.
Your Honour, I have the utmost respect for you personally. I have the utmost respect for the position you have been put in and that you should not have been put in. I understand why you are in this position, Your Honour. I understand the pressures that you have been put under. You and I will leave this chamber tonight as friends, respecting each other. I will be your friend when you retire, and I will wish you all the best. But today, Your Honour, I find it necessary that, pursuant to Rule 2-5(3), I do wish to appeal your ruling.
Honourable senators, order, please.
Shame on you.
Order, please. Honourable senators, the question is as follows:
Shall the Speaker’s ruling be sustained? All those in favour of the Speaker’s ruling will please say “yea.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.
I see two senators rising. Is there agreement on a bell?
The vote will take place at 9:10 p.m. Call in the senators.
