Honourable senators, I rise on a question of privilege because my rights and the rights of all honourable senators to fully participate in debate and proceedings are currently being breached according to rule 13-1. The Senate has convened only four times since the middle of March to approve legislation and we are here again without the appropriate measures to allow for full participation.

Senate leadership has agreed to resume so-called normal sittings, including going through the Order Paper, to discuss non-governmental, non-urgent business. It is impossible in these circumstances to meet our oath, provide proper judgment or sober second thought about legislation or other matters without proper study, due consideration or adequate access to Senate resources.

During the initial crisis, there was a troubling but somewhat understandable agreement to limit debate to emergency government legislation designed to help Canadians and to restrict the number of senators allowed to participate to protect their health. But technology could change that and should have by now.

As we gather here today, many senators are not able to participate. It is one thing when we are asked to deal with emergency legislation. It is quite another when we are returning to so-called normal sittings without the ability for all to participate.

Senators are being asked or told rather to either stay in their homes or rotate their time in the chamber with others in their group. Without the infrastructure allowing for remote or virtual participation in non-emergency legislation we are, in essence, obstructing all senators’ rights to represent their regions and constituents, and to participate in Senate proceedings.

While I understand that leadership has also agreed that there will be no formal votes, there is absolutely no way to predict or restrict the right of a senator to demand such a vote. But votes should not be held when so many are denied their fundamental right.

More questions arise on the legitimacy of the actions of this chamber in this current arrangement. If there are standing votes on matters arising from the Order Paper, how do we record the votes of senators not in the chamber? How do I ask someone to be my surrogate and vote my conscience in my absence? Is it not their obligation to vote their conscience reflecting the obligations of their region?

Provincial stay-at-home restrictions and personal health concerns currently make it impossible for some senators to enter the chamber or attend future sittings. If a senator from P.E.I. were to come to the Senate to do their job, they would need to self-isolate for 14 days here and then again when they return home, preventing them from coming back for any future sittings during that period.

Other provinces and territories have similar restrictions. That no action has been taken to accommodate our colleagues is embarrassing, but it’s more importantly a dangerous precedent.

In fact, the oath we swear when we take our place in this chamber is that we must appear despite all difficulties and with no excuses. But for many of our colleagues, that would mean breaking the law, so we must give them the option to be here even virtually.

MPs in the House of Commons began hybrid sessions of Parliament on May 27. The U.K. House of Lords has been sitting since April and will be voting and debating virtually as of this week. In fact, many parliaments across the world have worked out ways to sit for months. Why are we so far behind? Why is there now a sudden change of heart to sit without the appropriate measures?

Why are we not adopting the same infrastructure and technology available to the House? We are dealing with complex and costly issues. For example, the Parliamentary Budget Officer just recently reported that it’s likely the federal deficit for this year will hit $252 billion as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a staggering level of dollars spent with little or no oversight.

Should we debate extending the CERB, to whom it goes, at what cost and for how long? All these questions need a little sober second thought.

Rule 13-1 of the Rules of the Senate state that:

A violation of the privileges of any one Senator affects all Senators and the ability of the Senate to carry out its functions. The preservation of the privileges of the Senate is the duty of every Senator and has priority over every other matter before the Senate.

Privilege in the Rules of the Senate is defined as:

The rights, powers and immunities enjoyed by each house collectively, and by members of each house individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.

Privileges include “freedom of speech” and “freedom from obstruction and intimidation,” which the current physical limitations constitute.

Honourable senators, only 33 senators excluding the speaker are allowed to be in the chamber and participate. Because of this, my right as a senator to debate with other senators is being obstructed. This is a fundamental obstruction of our parliamentary privilege and is setting an exceptionally dangerous precedent for the Senate as an institution. We are limiting senators’ freedoms to debate and their obligation to represent their regions.

It is imperative that we adopt changes that allow us to conduct hybrid sittings. All senators have the right to debate and vote, especially on non-government business or motions that intend to significantly alter how this chamber will function respecting our constitutional obligations.

In our current form, we are unrepresentative, we are disrespecting our obligations to our colleagues and we are functioning in an unparliamentary manner.

I recommend, Your Honour, that you consider that we sit only to debate urgent government business or not sit at all, and certainly not deal with any other item on the Order Paper until the appropriate considerations have been met that allow for hybrid sittings or sittings that include all senators. Thank you.