Senator Plett: 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.

Senator Lankin: To speak on your behalf? Absolutely.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Lankin, your time has expired.

Hon. Frances Lankin: A number of the points that are relevant to your decision and your ruling have been made. I won’t repeat those. I will try to set a couple of more points on the record for both context and support for the proposition that Senator Gold has put forward — that your job is to interpret, and that there are some important “spirit of the Senate” rules and existing practices that we need to consider.

First, I would say this to Senator Carignan’s point, and Senator Batters has raised this as well. Both of them have said categorically that there was no consultation and no discussion of when the message on Bill C-11 would come to a vote. I believe that not to be the case. I very specifically heard Senator Gold, in his own words, give us a chronology last week, which included a discussion both at scroll meetings and at leaders’ meetings and a statement from Senator Plett that this will not be done by Friday, when that was clearly the intent put forward by the government at this point in time.

Therefore, I don’t know how Senator Batters or Senator Carignan, other than what they have heard from their leader, would have any first-hand information on that. The information I have is from general discussions within our group on understanding how things are proceeding for the week. I clearly came away with the impression that those discussions were ongoing. I think you’re not in a position to go beyond what the honourable senator has said. He made it very clear how those discussions took place last week.

The next thing I want to speak to is the issue of practices in this chamber. We’ve heard much about the fact that rule 7-2 hasn’t been amended to specifically include, for example, the reference to recognized groups whereas other ones have. I would suggest to you that if you look back — and I think you would know this from rulings that you’ve made in this chamber in the past — that for some considerable months before any of the language was changed, we operated on a basis that had been arrived at as a consensus, let’s say, in this chamber that we would, in fact, recognize the recognized groups, there would be facilitators and there would be people who would speak on rotation on bills and a range of things, which set the practice in place before the actual language was changed. I would ask you to keep this in mind because in the spirit of the Senate that we’re moving towards, it’s important that we can continue to move our understanding of how we operate with each other and what is in the best interest of Canadians in terms of how this Senate operates, and not get tied down at the Rules Committee, which everybody says is the committee where things go to die.

One of the reasons that things perhaps go to die there is because — and I heard it again in Senator Batters’ statement and I heard it from my early days in the Rules Committee from Senator Frum over and over again — this is a consensus committee. Well, consensus does not mean that one group has a veto, and that’s been the way it’s operated. We have moved to practices, and those practices should be understood. The opposition caucus has clearly demonstrated its practice of negotiating with the leader representative of the Senate. They’ve clearly shown their respect for the powers and worked with the powers. Today, although I know they’ve been waiting for this motion to come along for a long time to raise this point of order, they now want to put forward another proposal.

Last, I want to speak about the context in which this is being raised. Senator Dalphond actually did that for me, so I’ll just add to that. We are in a context of a clear dilatory use of the Rules for some time around trying to defeat this bill or stopping it from coming to a vote for many reasons. I don’t need to become political in my analysis, but there are political reasons that I would warrant that are important to the opposition and I respect their exercise of their view of what’s important. However, that context means that, in fact, this particular point of order — as the one last week that we heard — is, in fact, a dilatory use of the Rules. This is all about delay. It would be more than ironic; it would be, as people have said, an absurd outcome to see a dilatory use of the Rules attempt at delay to bring about an inability of the government to exercise its right to bring debate to a close at the end of time.

In response to Senator Plett’s comment that the government is ramming this through, this is a bill that — let alone what happened in the House of Commons — in the Senate had 138 witnesses, four clause-by-clause considerations, 31 meetings, 67 hours and 30 minutes, pre-study, study and it goes on. The number of amendments that were debated was 73. The number of amendments that were adopted was 26. Those amendments were debated here at third reading, they went to the other place and we have a message back.

We are now at the very end of this process, which is just the message, and you can see the efforts that the opposition are going to, in my contextual argument, for further delay. I would argue that it would completely undermine the role of the Senate and our job to deal with government legislation as a priority. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I’ve listened very carefully to the discussion tonight. It has ranged from a clear discussion of the merits of using time allocation at this point in time into discussions about reform of the Senate, where we’re headed or where we should be headed. There is no doubt there is a lot of disagreement in this chamber still. I live in hope that we will continue to have these discussions and perhaps come to a point where we can see a road forward together.

One of the things I would like to say about the speeches I’ve heard tonight is that there isn’t one of them with which I didn’t agree with some elements of what people said. I also disagreed with some elements of what people said.

One of the things that makes it difficult for me with my particular temperament and not being able to keep quiet when Senator Plett says certain things — of course, he can’t keep quiet when I say certain things either; it’s good across the floor — is when a position of the meritorious behaviour of the opposition is put forward as only speaking on behalf of Canadians. We all speak on behalf of Canadians. There are Canadians who have polarized views on this particular piece of legislation before us, as there is on others.

This is on both sides; I include this for the GRO — the Government Representative Office — as well as for the opposition: There isn’t a monopoly on representing what Canadians think. There are tons of scorn heaped upon us from people opposite who say that we’re not independent and put a partisan label on us. That would suit their purposes in terms of their concerns about a loss of official opposition status in a reformed Senate. We understand that those are the things at stake, but all of the people here represent voices of Canadians.

Your job, as has been said, is to bring forward and highlight the voices of Canadians who are not heard through other processes. That does not mean that we will necessarily all agree with what all of those voices have to say. It’s like just a couple of hours ago, maybe it was, when Senator Plett took a shot at me and said that I said that the Rules Committee worked on consensus and that should never happen. Well, no, but I don’t think the Rules Committee works on consensus; I think the Rules Committee puts forward a position of working on a consensus and certain people say, “No, no, no. We don’t have a consensus.” For me, that is exercising a veto, essentially.

We have these tensions, and I think they come primarily from a different understanding and desire for the direction of the Senate.

When it comes to what that means at this moment with the time allocation motion in front of us, I have a history in partisan politics and I hate time allocation motions. I think people should be responsible enough to take the debate as far as it needs to go to hear the variety of voices and to ensure that we have a deliberative discourse that allows us to hear each other.

There is nothing about how this chamber operates that actually supports that.

When I got here, I was appalled when I saw this practice where one person would speak and another person would stand and take the adjournment. It would sometimes be two or three weeks before we got back to that person. How do you listen to each other and ensure you have a coherent debate going forward? I was told that senators needed time to prepare after what they heard.

Maybe it’s not a good example — maybe it’s just the example that I lived in the Ontario legislature — but when we had debates and discussions when a bill came forward, we worked at it and didn’t skip around and adjourn and not come back to it. We talked things through. We got to a point where, responsibly — most of the time — the points had been made. They’d been heard in committee; they made sure there was a full range of witnesses. In fact, every group was able to put forward names, so you could tell there was a full range of views coming forward. Then we debated it out in the legislature, and we came to the point where we voted.

The problem here — and the reason it sticks in my craw that I’m going to support time allocation — is because I have seen with this bill that we have had fulsome debate. In fact, nobody has really talked about the fact that there was a bill in the prior Parliament — Bill C-10 — that was the same as this. It has been around a few times here. We’ve had fulsome debate in this chamber. We had fulsome committee hearings. If that makes up for something that was lacking in the other chamber, as Senator Wallin pointed out, then we have done that; we have made up for that.

I think the characterization that I heard earlier tonight from the leader of the opposition, namely that the government was ramming this through, was unfortunate. I don’t think that is an accurate description. We are at the message stage. For those who are listening and wondering what this is all about, we don’t have the bill before us right now. We are debating putting a time limit on how long we can debate about the message that came from the other place, and the question, fundamentally, is do we accept the message or send it back? And yet, a number of people there would propose that the six hours that have been set aside, one, is not enough; two, is the representative ramming it through; and, three, is not respectful of the voices. None of that, in my view, is true.

I wish we would have an opportunity to have a real debate about the vision of reform in the Senate. If the opposition is tired of feeling like they’re not respected in the things they say, I would say that I respect them in the things they say. I don’t often respect them in the things they do in terms of how they conduct themselves in this place, but I have to say that sometimes I descend to the same level. I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. You’re the one who has to worry about that the most.

But I would love to have that discussion. I’m not opposed to seeing opposition voices and the Conservative values brought forward. I believe in cognitive diversity. I believe in having all these views on the table. I do oppose you trying to label who I am in my politics, like the colleague directly across from me who tonight said, “You’re a Liberal.” That’s interesting. I voted Conservative, and I’ve voted New Democrat. Sorry, Prime Minister, I’ve never voted for your party.

Don’t tell me who I am. I have my own values and politics, and I bring them to bear in the best way I can in the spirit and respect of what I think this chamber is about. The basic problem is that I don’t think we have an agreement about what this chamber is about.

Thank you very much, Your Honour.

[Translation]

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I’ve listened very carefully to the discussion tonight. It has ranged from a clear discussion of the merits of using time allocation at this point in time into discussions about reform of the Senate, where we’re headed or where we should be headed. There is no doubt there is a lot of disagreement in this chamber still. I live in hope that we will continue to have these discussions and perhaps come to a point where we can see a road forward together.

One of the things I would like to say about the speeches I’ve heard tonight is that there isn’t one of them with which I didn’t agree with some elements of what people said. I also disagreed with some elements of what people said.

One of the things that makes it difficult for me with my particular temperament and not being able to keep quiet when Senator Plett says certain things — of course, he can’t keep quiet when I say certain things either; it’s good across the floor — is when a position of the meritorious behaviour of the opposition is put forward as only speaking on behalf of Canadians. We all speak on behalf of Canadians. There are Canadians who have polarized views on this particular piece of legislation before us, as there is on others.

This is on both sides; I include this for the GRO — the Government Representative Office — as well as for the opposition: There isn’t a monopoly on representing what Canadians think. There are tons of scorn heaped upon us from people opposite who say that we’re not independent and put a partisan label on us. That would suit their purposes in terms of their concerns about a loss of official opposition status in a reformed Senate. We understand that those are the things at stake, but all of the people here represent voices of Canadians.

Your job, as has been said, is to bring forward and highlight the voices of Canadians who are not heard through other processes. That does not mean that we will necessarily all agree with what all of those voices have to say. It’s like just a couple of hours ago, maybe it was, when Senator Plett took a shot at me and said that I said that the Rules Committee worked on consensus and that should never happen. Well, no, but I don’t think the Rules Committee works on consensus; I think the Rules Committee puts forward a position of working on a consensus and certain people say, “No, no, no. We don’t have a consensus.” For me, that is exercising a veto, essentially.

We have these tensions, and I think they come primarily from a different understanding and desire for the direction of the Senate.

When it comes to what that means at this moment with the time allocation motion in front of us, I have a history in partisan politics and I hate time allocation motions. I think people should be responsible enough to take the debate as far as it needs to go to hear the variety of voices and to ensure that we have a deliberative discourse that allows us to hear each other.

There is nothing about how this chamber operates that actually supports that.

When I got here, I was appalled when I saw this practice where one person would speak and another person would stand and take the adjournment. It would sometimes be two or three weeks before we got back to that person. How do you listen to each other and ensure you have a coherent debate going forward? I was told that senators needed time to prepare after what they heard.

Maybe it’s not a good example — maybe it’s just the example that I lived in the Ontario legislature — but when we had debates and discussions when a bill came forward, we worked at it and didn’t skip around and adjourn and not come back to it. We talked things through. We got to a point where, responsibly — most of the time — the points had been made. They’d been heard in committee; they made sure there was a full range of witnesses. In fact, every group was able to put forward names, so you could tell there was a full range of views coming forward. Then we debated it out in the legislature, and we came to the point where we voted.

The problem here — and the reason it sticks in my craw that I’m going to support time allocation — is because I have seen with this bill that we have had fulsome debate. In fact, nobody has really talked about the fact that there was a bill in the prior Parliament — Bill C-10 — that was the same as this. It has been around a few times here. We’ve had fulsome debate in this chamber. We had fulsome committee hearings. If that makes up for something that was lacking in the other chamber, as Senator Wallin pointed out, then we have done that; we have made up for that.

I think the characterization that I heard earlier tonight from the leader of the opposition, namely that the government was ramming this through, was unfortunate. I don’t think that is an accurate description. We are at the message stage. For those who are listening and wondering what this is all about, we don’t have the bill before us right now. We are debating putting a time limit on how long we can debate about the message that came from the other place, and the question, fundamentally, is do we accept the message or send it back? And yet, a number of people there would propose that the six hours that have been set aside, one, is not enough; two, is the representative ramming it through; and, three, is not respectful of the voices. None of that, in my view, is true.

I wish we would have an opportunity to have a real debate about the vision of reform in the Senate. If the opposition is tired of feeling like they’re not respected in the things they say, I would say that I respect them in the things they say. I don’t often respect them in the things they do in terms of how they conduct themselves in this place, but I have to say that sometimes I descend to the same level. I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. You’re the one who has to worry about that the most.

But I would love to have that discussion. I’m not opposed to seeing opposition voices and the Conservative values brought forward. I believe in cognitive diversity. I believe in having all these views on the table. I do oppose you trying to label who I am in my politics, like the colleague directly across from me who tonight said, “You’re a Liberal.” That’s interesting. I voted Conservative, and I’ve voted New Democrat. Sorry, Prime Minister, I’ve never voted for your party.

Don’t tell me who I am. I have my own values and politics, and I bring them to bear in the best way I can in the spirit and respect of what I think this chamber is about. The basic problem is that I don’t think we have an agreement about what this chamber is about.

Thank you very much, Your Honour.

[Translation]