2024 05 02 Sen Plett on Motion 165

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you so much, Senator Ringuette, for letting us know whether or not you are going to support that. I really was listening, and I was very unsure if you were going to support this amendment or not until the very end. Now, at least, we are sure of that. We appreciate your directness there.
I also have a few words to say on the amendment, and, like the previous speech, I will sidetrack to speaking about other things in the amendment because that is what we just heard. Thirteen out of the 15 minutes that we just heard was giving us a history lesson as opposed to speaking to the amendment.
Colleagues, I am happy to rise on debate on Senator Quinn’s amendment. I will also preface, as Senator Ringuette did, that I will be brief.
I support the amendment. As I said on Tuesday, I don’t see why the government should have more time to answer questions than the questions of the members of the House of Commons.
I say “members of the House of Commons” as compared to “MPs” because I agree with Senator Quinn. We are all MPs. We are all members of Parliament. I don’t really see how letting the government not answer our questions by simply tabling a document saying they cannot answer the question is any good.
I want to take this opportunity as well, colleagues, if I could, to correct just a few things that were said on Tuesday and Wednesday.
First, I said a few times in my speech on Tuesday that Pierre Poilievre had opened up a 20-point lead over the Liberals. Three polls released this week from Abacus, Nanos and Léger show that this lead is now, in fact, 21 points.
An Hon. Senator: Twenty-two.
Senator Plett: So I stand corrected. I apologize.
In fact, I will note that the Trudeau Liberals have lost ground since Senator Gold tabled Motion No. 165. Clearly, Canadians are not as enthusiastic as some senators think that they are about this Trudeau Senate.
(1540)
In fact, since this new Senate has been in place, there were two general elections: in 2019 and 2021. In both of those, Conservative leaders - Mr. Scheer and Mr. O’Toole - promised to reverse the course of those changes, and they both received more votes than Justin Trudeau did. Pierre Poilievre, who has the same policy, is now leading by 21 points. Let me take all of those arguments about Canadians supporting the changes to the Senate with a grain of salt.
Second, Senator Downe asked me on Tuesday if I would be open to negotiations with the government on the changes, and I said, “Yes, I would be.” I want to report to this chamber that I have been open ever since, but there has been no offer made to have those negotiations - none. That door has been firmly closed. We are not negotiating this. We are pushing this through.
Third, Senator Saint-Germain said the reason for the longer delay in the government answering Senate questions was the ability to create an enormous number of questions with the help of artificial intelligence, or AI. I want to reassure Senator Saint‑Germain of the following: Number one: My office is churning out a large number of questions, and we use human intelligence. You don’t need AI. Number two: In Motion No. 165, senators are limited to three questions. Whatever AI may help you with, it won’t do a lot. Number three: Members of the House who have access to the same tools as senators have to wait 45 days instead of 60 like Senator Gold wants us to wait.
Fourth, there has been mention of the House of Lords as a model for these changes. Let me correct the record on two things about that: The crossbenchers will never have a majority in the Lords. That would be against the law. No one disputes the fact that the Lords can belong to parties represented in the House of Commons. In 2017, the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House of Lords recommended that the appointments to the Lords would be linked to the general election results.