The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Dupuis, do you have a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, on December 14, 2021, after the first recorded vote this session, Senator Martin asked for clarification about the practice of senators explaining their reasons for abstaining only after they have voted. I had previously addressed this issue on March 17, 2021, when I noted “that the time for explaining why you abstain is during debate on the matter.”

The practice of providing an explanation of abstentions reflects requirements dating back to a period when senators needed permission to abstain, after providing an acceptable explanation. Since 1982, senators have been able to abstain without permission. While our Rules therefore no longer mention explanations of abstentions, they have sometimes occurred, representing something of a residual element of our practice.

Honourable senators, in practice, of course, one would expect that the number of abstentions on any particular vote should be quite limited in most cases, and this indeed reflects historical patterns. One of the most important roles of a senator is to vote, thereby fulfilling our fundamental responsibility to make sometimes difficult decisions that will affect all Canadians.

As all senators know, abstaining is not a vote. However, in recent years the number of senators abstaining has grown considerably. This is a development on which all colleagues should reflect carefully. We have also seen increasing numbers of attempts to explain abstentions after the vote. In some cases, these have actually seemed to be speeches that would be more appropriately given before the vote. Let me remind you that, even when our Rules required explanations for abstentions, they were brief.

The Senate has generally been accommodating to colleagues on this point. Now that the issue has been raised a second time, however, it would be appropriate to note that such explanations should be limited to the rarest of circumstances. They might, for example, be appropriate if, after the bells are ringing for a vote, a senator realizes that he or she may have a possible conflict of interest, or if a colleague had not been able to follow the debate, and wanted to clarify that the abstention reflected a wish to avoid voting on an issue with insufficient information. If allowed, such explanations must be extremely brief. They are not a substitute for participating in debate, and they must never be viewed as a substitute for a vote.

I would like to thank Senator Martin for raising this important issue again.

(1500)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators will recall that, when we left off yesterday at 4 p.m., Senator Gold was using his time to answer questions, and I believe there was at least one other senator who wished to ask a question.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?