Speaker of the Senate
Speaker’s Ruling – Question of Privilege – Motion 37 (sessional order concerning committees)
Honourable senators, I am prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised yesterday by Senator Dalphond concerning motion 37, which proposes a sessional order concerning certain aspects of committee business. Paragraph eight of the motion, which would affect the duration of committee memberships in some situations, was the focus of particular attention. The concern reflects the unfortunate situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, which means that some senators are unable to participate in debate and vote on a motion that may have significant effects on them. Similar issues were raised in a very comprehensive manner in Senator Wallin’s question of privilege, which was addressed in a ruling of June 16, 2020.
The question of privilege was raised without notice under rule 13-4, in light of the specific provision of rule 4-11(2)(a), which deals with a question of privilege relating to a matter on notice. The rule states that if an item is on notice a question of privilege may only be raised “at the time the order is first called for consideration”.
As senators know, there are four criteria that a question of privilege must meet to be dealt with under the processes of Chapter 13 of the Rules. First, the issue must be raised at the earliest opportunity. In this case, the matter was raised several hours after the motion was first called for consideration. Rule 4-11(2)(a) suggests that the most appropriate time to raise the issue may have been when the notice was first called. This provision is, however, very rarely raised, so there may be understandable ambiguity about its application.
The second and third criteria require that a question of privilege must “directly concern the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees or any Senator”, and must be raised “to correct a grave and serious breach”. In considering these points, we must always take account of the fact that privilege exists to allow us to fulfil our duties as members of the Senate. This point has been made in various rulings, including those of May 23, 2013; February 24, 2016; and March 22, 2018. In the first of these rulings, the Speaker noted “… that the privileges and rights exercised by the Senate itself take precedence over those of individual senators”. The rights and privileges of a senator can therefore be restricted by the Senate. Perhaps the most fundamental right of the Senate is control over its internal affairs, including the Rules and the management of Senate business. The Senate adopted its Rules, and the Senate can amend them, suspend certain provisions or temporarily alter their effect, which is what, in essence, the motion at issue proposes to do. On the particular issue on the unfortunate absence of colleagues, we must be clear that, when quorum is present, the Senate can exercise its powers. The decision as to when it will actually do this is in the hands of honourable senators.
The final criterion is that there must be no alternate parliamentary process reasonably available to pursuing a question of privilege. An amendment to motion 37 had been proposed shortly before the question of privilege was raised, and nothing would prevent another amendment. Colleagues can also continue debate, with the goal of persuading each other of their position. Eventually, the Senate can decide to adopt or reject the motion, and that decision would be an expression of its right to manage its internal affairs.
As already noted, a question of privilege must meet all four criteria of rule 13-2(1). Since that is not the case in this situation, the ruling is that the prima facie merits of the matter have not been established. Debate can therefore continue.