Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-47 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) on page 402, by adding the following after line 5:

“680.1 Section 385.2 of the Act is repealed.”;

(b) on page 402, by adding the following after line 10:

“Coming into Force

682 Section 680.1 comes into force on the second anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”.

In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler:

That Bill C-47 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) on page 402, by adding the following after line 5:

“680.1 Section 385.2 of the Act is repealed.”;

(b) on page 402, by adding the following after line 10:

“Coming into Force

682 Section 680.1 comes into force on the second anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”.

Would the senator take a question? Thank you, Senator Tannas, for your remarks. You alluded in the early part of your remarks to the promise to amend the standing orders. Are you aware that the standing orders in the House have, in fact, been amended on several occasions consistent with the electoral promise of 2015? Can you provide us with a short summary of those changes to the standing orders?

Well, I would tell you I was here before and I’m here now, and the standing orders may have changed. The work product is identical.

I appreciate your comments, though, on this particular issue because, in fact, the standing orders were changed, providing the Speaker of the House of Commons with the ability to carve out separate votes on any part of an omnibus bill that was not announced in the budget documents that were tabled before Parliament. In fact, the standing order provides that it shall not apply, that is, the ability to carve it out:

 . . . if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The Speaker ruled that Division 39 of Part 4 met this task because it was contained in the annex and, therefore, ruled that it was appropriately contained.

I’m glad you raised this. It’s a good one that goes to an episode of “The Crown.” The finance minister did not say one word about this in her speech. You’re right; it was in an annex to the budget. It was on page 254 of Annex No. 3 of the budget plan for 2023. It says:

. . . the government proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act to establish a uniform . . . approach in respect of federal political parties’ collection, use, and disclosure of personal information in a manner that overrides overlapping provincial legislation.

That’s what it said. There is not a peep about it in the budget speech, and here we have one paragraph of two sentences in the back.

Yes, the rules have been sufficiently torqued such that all you have to do is stick it somewhere in the volumes of budget documents, and it qualifies as a budget. If I were asking you the question, I would say, “Can you point me to any line item of spending at which this particular division applies?”

Would you take a question, please, Senator Tannas?

Certainly.

As I understand it, Bill C-47 is, in effect, a confidence vote. It’s a budget bill. Could you please help me understand the nature of this amendment? What impact will this amendment, if we were to accept it, have on the ability of the government to function?

I don’t believe it is a confidence vote. We’ve seen budget implementation acts amended before. In fact, we’ve seen in this government’s time frame that they have been amended. The government didn’t fall.

That is one of the pressure tactics that is used, but if that’s the case, if we can’t touch the budget implementation act, then how could a government ever resist sticking something in there that no one can do anything about?

It goes to what those bright-eyed people in 2015 said about frustrating the work of Parliament and making it undemocratic. I think that it is intellectually dishonest to say that this piece, because it happens to be in a giant omnibus bill that is named the “Budget Implementation Act,” that our changing something in it would, in fact, cause a government to fall.

I would also say that we are at the end of the session, but we’re not at the end of the session. The government is still over with their colleagues in the House of Commons. They are still meeting today. They haven’t upped and gone home like sometimes when we get the budget implementation act and we have to deal with that issue. I would also say that they have voted and approved hybrid, so them coming back isn’t them coming back at all. They just have to get on their laptops at home to deal with whatever it is that we have sent.

I reject completely the idea that something that is not to do with the budget somehow becomes a confidence vote if you stick it in a budget implementation act. Thank you.

Would Senator Tannas take a question?

Yes.

Thank you. I’m very sympathetic to your point of view on this. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of how this government, several years ago, used a budget implementation act was to plug a 200-plus-page carbon tax into a budget implementation act, with no ability to really debate it or amend it or anything like that in that sort of fashion.

I’m part of the Legal Committee, and we were discussing this Canada Elections Act change and found that it was not a great way to do it, to say the least. Is that what your amendment precisely purports to do — simply remove that part of it? It wasn’t specific in the actual amendment, so I wanted to give you a chance to explain.

Yes, that’s exactly right. Our legal minds here in the Senate, who do such a great job for us, the way that they have written it is that section would stay in, but it would be repealed in two years. That’s to give everyone time.

When you read it, it’s kind of clunky. It seems as if it’s backwards, but it’s not. It’s essentially saying that we have a sunset clause of two years and that these two sentences that are in there proclaiming this wonderful new privacy regime that doesn’t exist would go away if it hasn’t been replaced, essentially.

Would Senator Tannas take a question?

Yes.

Senator Tannas, thank you for your amendment and for highlighting what has become progressively worse year after year with these omnibus bills. Those of us who take our constitutional responsibilities in this chamber seriously recognize that we’re impeded from doing some serious work on some serious bills that have nothing to do with the budget. Yesterday, Senator Simons spoke to the passenger rights bill that has been plugged into this particular budget bill and has nothing to do with the budget, and, of course, it’s very important.

At the end of the day, I don’t think there is anything nefarious on the part of the government. I just think it’s a matter of convenience and a matter of bypassing the nuisance of Parliament, and what comes of it is bad legislation that touches particular citizens.

If this amendment that you propose is gloriously defeated by the government, would you take the principled stance of finally joining those of us in this chamber and send a message by voting against this budget implementation act and by saying that we’re not going to stand for this anymore?

I have made it a habit of supporting government budgets. They’re elected; they’re there. I will continue to do that no matter which government is in power and no matter whether I agree with the spending or not.

I haven’t, frankly, got that far yet. I still have a light in the window that maybe this will pass.

There is so much that is good in this act. I would sure love to be able to vote, having received a message that the government has at least considered an amendment from us, at least received the message that we’ve reached our fill of this and that we need to do something else.

Senator Tannas, we’ve heard this complaint from colleagues of ours for years and years. What action do you recommend we take to finally send a message to the executive branch of government that they should not treat Parliament as nothing more than a rubber stamp?

Thank you, I’ve been thinking about this because I hate people who put problems down and don’t have any solutions.

First, I intend to launch an inquiry where we can get some ideas on the table. My own personal idea is that, at some point, we should send a message that says that the first order of business for a budget implementation act is that we will review it to look for possible items that we believe need more study, more time or should be in a separate bill, and we will carve those out of any future BIAs. That would be something we could do.

If we gave them advance notice, maybe they would consider that. If they didn’t consider that, then we could decide whether we want to follow through with something that we have indicated we would do.

That’s one idea. I think there are a lot of other ideas.

This is part of what Senator Gold has always talked about: that he is the representative of the government in the Senate and he is the representative of the Senate in the government. I think if we spent some time and all made some proposals and discussed what we think and got the conversation going, we could arrive at a consensus here on how to deal with this so that we’re not again having Groundhog Day next June on the budget implementation act.

Senator Tannas, will you accept a question?

Yes.

Thank you. I won’t be long. I don’t want to get into a discussion of omnibus bills versus non-omnibus bills. I’ve been on both sides of that question, and I can appreciate both sides of it.

I am thinking back to when I first arrived in the Senate — it was June — and sitting on the Finance Committee. We dealt with the Federal Prompt Payment for Construction Work Act that was buried in the BIA. We’re still waiting for it to be proclaimed, for any number of reasons. It might be federal-provincial discussions. I don’t know why. I’m not privy to those discussions. Therein, we approved something, and we’re still waiting for it.

You summed it up: Members are on the horns of a dilemma here. We can certainly appreciate that it’s a minority Parliament. At the same time, we can appreciate and understand this issue you’re bringing forward. Quite frankly, anyone who has campaigned for office knows very well that political parties have a great deal of information and that this information should be protected. I also believe that a number of the political parties are not necessarily supportive of this notion.

You asked about problems and solutions. My question is this: Is there another way for the Senate to create a public discussion because we really need the Canadian public to be crying for this. Is there another way?

First of all, I think there is. We can hold public hearings if we want. We could figure out which committee needs to go. We can go out on the road and hold some public hearings.

At the end of the day, you can’t blame the political parties. Why would any organization rush headlong into something that is going to bring more accountability and a whole lot more transparency and work, et cetera?

As far as political parties go, I think there are a lot of complicated issues. You knock on somebody’s door, and they tell you something, “I’m going to do this; I hate this” — whatever. Now all of a sudden you’re in possession of information they’ve given, but they don’t know what you’re going to do with it.

These days with technology, you walk down to the bottom of the sidewalk, you key what that person said into your phone and it goes into a database. For all I know — nobody in here knows — it might go to the fundraising arm of the party immediately with a customized letter that says, “We are doing on X and Y” on the thing that person just said they hated. They could sell it — who knows — because they are not required under any law to do anything. They could have had a data leak. We had a data leak. The Green Party had a data leak and voluntarily disclosed it. They didn’t have to because they’re not subject to any law, but they disclosed it anyway. We don’t know if any or all the other parties have had a data leak and didn’t disclose it. That’s the situation.

So I agree with you. This is an issue that maybe a Senate committee could be helpful with. I don’t know, though. I guess that’s for us to decide in the fullness of time.

Would Senator Tannas take another question?

Absolutely.

Senator Tannas, the second anniversary, which is the time frame for the sunset clause — what’s your rationale for that? As you know, governments move slowly, and now you’ve got a lot of political parties getting involved. As well, there’s an election in 2025, so it seems the deadline will be maybe just before the next election. Was that part of your rationale? I’d just like to know why you picked two years and not three years.

Well, originally I thought 18 months because I had heard somewhere that you can get just about anything written and consulted on within 18 months. However, I did purposely pick two years instead of three because I think they should make an effort to do this before the next election. By all accounts, it’s going to be a highly active election. The public is very engaged. They’re going to say things — in my example — at the door. Things are going to happen around artificial intelligence and all of the data work. We had the Cambridge Analytica revelations.

Going into this particular upcoming election, there are a lot of things that may have lasting impacts on people’s privacy and the data they will be disclosing that will be collected on them. Therefore, I think it’s reasonable to say that this needs to be dealt with in the next two years.

Senator Tannas, would you take another question? My question may overlap slightly with Senator Batters’ question, but I wanted to very specifically focus on this.

When Stéphane Perrault, the Chief Electoral Officer, appeared at committee, he did express frustration about changes to the Canada Elections Act appearing in this bill. You’re focusing on the privacy element. I wanted to ask you specifically: Why didn’t you just simply remove this clause related to the Canada Elections Act? Why didn’t you amend it so that it be removed from this bill if, in fact, one of the important issues here is changes to this act appearing in this bill? Why didn’t you suggest, “Let’s take this out of this bill altogether because it doesn’t belong here” instead?

Thank you.

I really wasn’t ready to go that far by deleting things that a government is intending to do. I felt it was better that we try to improve upon it while making a point. I was also thinking of the public. This isn’t on the public’s radar screen, but if it were, they would be hopping mad, and they would expect something to be done.

So deleting it leaves us where we are. I think this, at least, has highlighted it and can continue to highlight it.

That’s the best answer I can give. Thank you.

Honourable senators, as sponsor of the bill, it will come as no surprise that I rise to speak against the amendment proposed by Senator Tannas. I’m happy to have more time to speak to Bill C-47, but I wish it was under different circumstances.

Thank you, Senator Tannas, for your comments. There is proof that optimists do live longer, happier lives. By the way, I loved “The Crown.” My wife, Angelina, and I loved it. In my business, though, we had no box. The priority was always on top.

Allow me to say a few words on why I oppose this amendment. First, as we all know, budgets are expressions of the policy priorities of the government of the day, and budget bills implement, in part, some of those priorities. By way of background information, the measure that appears in Division 39 of Part 4 of Bill C-47 is clearly listed on page 254 in annex 3 of the 2023 budget book. It says this:

. . . the government proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act to establish a uniform federal approach in respect of federal political parties’ collection, use, and disclosure of personal information in a manner that overrides overlapping provincial legislation.

I think most of us would agree — as did two of our committees through their reports — that changes to the Canada Elections Act probably deserves its own stand-alone legislation. I raised that issue in my speech yesterday.

Nevertheless, changes to the Canada Elections Act were announced in the budget, and I believe we must respect the government’s will. It is not inappropriate for these amendments to appear in the budget implementation act. In fact, Speaker Rota in the other place also judged that this was sufficient to meet the definition in their Standing Orders that this was germane to Budget 2023, and he did not designate the item for a separate vote during the marathon of amendments held last week.

Let me speak now to the policy rationale behind this measure. Federal political parties are key actors in a healthy democracy and help voters make informed choices through their engagement. Effective engagement requires federal political parties to collect a significant amount and variety of personal information. Canadians rightfully expect that all federal political parties will protect their personal information when it comes to the activities they undertake, such as canvassing, fundraising and polling.

The amendments in Division 39 seek to achieve two main objectives. First, they will empower the government with the authority to establish a uniform federal approach in respect of federal political parties’ collection, use, disclosure and retention of personal information.

Second, they will ensure that all federal political parties have consistent and appropriate national safeguards in place to protect the personal information of Canadians, which further contributes to broader efforts to protect Canada’s democracy.

This commitment is informed by an evolving privacy landscape, which Senator Colin Deacon skilfully addressed in his second-reading speech — thank you, Senator Deacon. It’s also informed by calls from subject-matter experts and growing expectations from Canadians with respect to the protection of their personal information. This measure dovetails with the spring 2022 ruling of British Columbia’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, which applied B.C.’s privacy legislation to include federal political parties. This creates an uneven playing field across jurisdictions, and could result in federal political parties having to handle data differently in every single provincial and territorial jurisdiction. This is obviously not tenable, and could restrict the ability of volunteers, elected officials and parties to engage with Canadians.

It’s also worth noting that the ruling of the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner is being challenged by all three major federal political parties represented in the other place: the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, and the New Democratic Party of Canada. That consensus amongst parties demonstrates the importance of this measure.

Honourable senators, you may recall that in 2018, Parliament previously set out an exclusive, complete and uniform set of rules for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by federal political parties. Parties are required to establish and comply with privacy policies that are regulated by the Canada Elections Act. There are six specific elements that parties must adhere to, including the type of information they collect, how they collect it and, perhaps most importantly, how they protect it. Employees of political parties must also be trained if they have access to personal information under the party’s control. This legislation confirms that it has always been the intention of the Canada Elections Act that voters across Canada benefit from the same set of privacy rules in federal elections, and that federal parties are not subject to provincial legislation.

It is worth pointing out that the matter before us was debated in the other place. The government’s intention, as I have described it, was confirmed in an intervention from the parliamentary secretary to the Associate Minister of Finance on June 7, when she said:

The changes that this bill makes to the Canada Elections Act confirm that Parliament has always intended that the Canada Elections Act should regulate uniformly, exclusively and comprehensively the federal political parties with respect to privacy.

Honourable senators, I’m told that the government is not stopping here. As set out in Bill C-47, the government has signalled and is committed to bringing forward additional legislative measures to ensure a uniform federal approach regarding the federal political parties’ collection, use and protection of personal information. This will further build trust in our democracy and increase protections of Canadians’ personal information.

Senator Tannas’s amendment suggests that this ought to happen within two years. I appreciate where he’s coming from — and I’m a fan, too, by the way — but I think an amendment is unnecessary. In fact, in my second-reading speech, I recognized that some senators may feel that this division is not robust enough, and does not go far enough fast enough. I even urged the government to make this a priority and not delay any further. Based on the government’s statements, I am confident that this will happen soon.

It is also a priority item for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. As per his mandate letter, he’s been asked to consider the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, which includes recommendations on protecting electors’ privacy and enhancing their confidence in how political parties manage their personal information.

I’ve been told that the government intends to bring legislative amendments on the subject as soon as possible. I am hopeful and, dare I say, confident that the framework for the future regime that Bill C-47 is proposing will soon see the light of day.

Legislation is not a static process. It’s not static at all; it’s dynamic. Trust, as I’ve always said, is the currency of every relationship. I think it was President Reagan who said, “Trust, but verify.”

We can always resist and revisit this issue in the future. There is nothing that impedes us from looking at this in the future, if it is not done. I feel that it’s not necessary at this point in time for many reasons. For the sake of brevity, you’ve all heard what it entails to amend a budget bill. I appreciate that the amendment before us would basically force the government to achieve concrete and permanent results within two years, but I think it would be inappropriate to put a legislative deadline on such an important matter. The government needs to get this right.

You referred to “The Crown,” Senator Tannas — in our business, we have to get it right. When someone would say that a client needs something, I would say this — and I’ve said it many times: “The client is going to be with us for a long time. We’re going to live with this for a long time. Let’s get it right.” An extra day won’t make a difference; an extra two days won’t make a difference; and an extra year won’t make a difference. We have to get this right, so I don’t believe a deadline is appropriate.

As honourable senators consider Senator Tannas’s amendment, I also want to point out, as we enter our final sitting week, or weeks — it could be weeks — the knock-on effects of an amendment to the budget implementation act could further delay its passage. I’m not suggesting that senators do not have the legislative authority to amend budget bills, but I am concerned that an amendment could delay the implementation of other measures contained in the bill. For instance, I think of the automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit, which seeks to deliver advance payments to lower-income Canadians who are struggling with the cost of living — we talk about inflation and the cost of living so often here. I will leave that for your consideration.

Once again, I thank senators for their attention, and I would humbly urge you all to vote against the amendment of Senator Tannas. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Would you take a question?

Yes.

As you know, Senator Loffreda, I mentioned this week in the Senate that I will support the budget implementation bill. However, it makes me somewhat uncomfortable that the government is including things in the budget that have nothing to do with its economic or fiscal policy. Our colleague Senator Deacon talked a bit about that. I look forward to listening to all of the arguments.

My question is as follows. If ever this amendment is accepted, if the majority of senators vote in favour of this amendment and in favour of the bill, are we going to send everything back to the House of Commons? The House of Commons is free to reject the amendment and send it all back to us. That would bring us to Friday, rather than tomorrow, but either way, we do not have much time. It would be the same as other times that they had already come to an agreement.

However, we still need to send the message that the Senate is independent. The government should not be including anything and everything in the budget implementation bill. It should only be including things that are related to economic and fiscal policy. In this case, we are talking about Elections Canada. We are talking about the ground rules for a democratic country.

My question is the following: If we vote on this amendment, is it a confidence vote? I do not believe so, since there is no monetary aspect at play. We can vote in favour of the amendment and vote for the budget implementation bill at the same time. There would be no vote of confidence in this government. I would just like to understand. You are the sponsor of the bill and I need clarification on how we should conduct ourselves. Thank you.

Thank you for your question, Senator Gignac.

With respect, it doesn’t have any impact or implications on the Senate, but the budget implementation act is a confidence motion in the House, as we all know. I did move an amendment last week, which I knew would not pass, but I moved it as a matter of principle for my community and the minorities I represent. It’s not the point of moving an amendment. I believe we have the right to move amendments — but, in this case, I believe that it’s unnecessary.

As I said, I’m a fan of Senator Tannas and many of you here in this house. I’m privileged and honoured to be here. I pinch myself almost every day and say, “Wow. Look at where I am.” It’s a weak argument because the government plans on doing it anyway.

Including a two-year deadline should not be an issue or really have any consequences. It’s not static; it’s dynamic. Legislation is dynamic. We have a right of overview. We have a right to revisit the situation. We have a right to look at it again if it’s not done. I want to get the quote right, but it is former President Reagan who said, “Trust, but verify.” We will do that in the future. If it continues to be the case, we will act accordingly.

Today, however, I feel it’s unnecessary. Trust is the currency of every relationship. I do believe it will be done. I’m looking forward to that. Thank you for your question.

Honourable senators, it’s my pleasure to rise briefly to speak to Senator Tannas’s amendment.

Colleagues, I strongly urge you not to support this amendment. First, it is unnecessary for all the reasons well outlined by Senator Loffreda.

Let me reinforce Senator Loffreda’s comments as the Government Representative in the Senate. I can indicate formally here, on behalf of the government, that the government will be bringing forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to ensure a uniform federal approach regarding federal political parties’ collection and use of personal and private information. This will go to the core of many of the concerns that senators, and others, have raised around privacy implications and the need to create a robust and effective regime at the national level. When that legislation is brought forward, we in the Senate will have our opportunity, as will our colleagues in the other place, to scrutinize it, debate it and study it in as granular and as detailed a fashion as we choose.

This legislation that the government intends to bring forward will build off the provisions contained in Bill C-47. Given the government’s commitment, including the fact, colleagues, that maintaining the health of Canada’s democracy is an element of the supply and confidence agreement of which we are all aware, I am confident that these proposed legislative changes will be brought forward quickly. Therefore, a sunset window of two years would be unnecessary.

I would also echo, but will not repeat, Senator Loffreda’s reminder of the many important measures that may be at stake should Bill C-47 not pass swiftly.

Second, and to be frank, I also believe that it is a concerning course of action within the context of the Senate’s overall relationship with the other place. Bill C-47 is a matter of confidence in a minority parliament. In putting it to a vote in the other place, the government tested this confidence and put its survival at risk. And the bill passed. In such circumstances, the Senate has customarily — and wisely, I might say — exercised a significant degree of restraint.

There is more as well. When it comes to rules governing elections, we must be circumspect, careful and, indeed, somewhat deferential vis-à-vis the choices made by elected members in the other place. They’re the ones who have to play by the rules and they’re the ones who will be accountable for whether they do play by the rules.

The provisions in Division 39 of Part 4 of this bill, which lay the groundwork for a privacy and data collection regime, were supported by the elected members in the other place, representing the major political parties that they would affect. As our former colleague Senator Dawson said during our debate on Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act:

Well, amendments are always normally considered by this place. As far as elections law, je pense qu’on a une petite gêne.

Honourable colleagues, is it within our power to send back Bill C-47 to the other place, even though it’s a budget bill and a matter of confidence? Yes. Is it within our power to amend laws relating to the electoral process that has been endorsed by the elected members of Parliament? Yes. However, it’s not because one has the power to do it that means it’s advisable to wield it.

The relationship between our two houses of Parliament is crucial for the proper functioning of our democracy. As an appointed body, when we’re dealing with a matter of confidence, a matter that is covered by a budget bill, I believe we must tread lightly, and when we’re dealing with matters related to the electoral process, so too should we tread lightly.

Colleagues, in this session, I feel that the other place has shown tremendous respect and openness to our good work. As some of you may know — certainly those who pay attention — we in the Government Representative Office advocate behind the scenes for the government to accept Senate amendments, for the government to allocate House time for the Senate messages we send over. The government must, in turn, advocate for those so that it will be accepted to the other parties in the House.

Colleagues, this is far from easy. However, despite the minority context in the other place, the government has been able to secure support for Senate amendments from other parties, including the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, which, as you all know, question, if not deny, the very legitimacy of the Senate.

Despite these different viewpoints, Parliament has functioned well. We have sent back amendments on a wide range of initiatives, and the other place has been able to respond before the summer adjournment, often with many amendments accepted. We’ve been able to work constructively, collaboratively and positively with the other place. This week, it looks like the session will end on a positive note, with many bills receiving Royal Assent, with contributions from both chambers. I dare say we have been fostering a very positive form of bicameral collaboration.

When the House rises is still not fully known, although it may be much sooner than we think. It’s been a good session, a collaborative session and one that we in the Senate should be proud of. We should be mindful of the respectful response that our amendments have gotten from the other place, from the government and from other parties.

The course that Senator Tannas is proposing is to send a confidence measure back to a minority House in the very twilight of the session — a proposal that would set us up for a standoff with the other place. This is not the way I wish to end a sitting that has been so fruitful, so collaborative and so successful. Therefore, I will be exercising restraint. I will be voting against the amendment. I urge you to do the same. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I just want to put a few points fairly briefly on the record. The first point is that I completely agree with my friend, our colleague Senator Tannas. I agree wholeheartedly with the points that he has made about omnibus legislation, and I’m afraid I also agree with his prediction about the fate of the amendment.

I said yesterday that I’m having a little bit of a challenge in moving from the executive to the legislative branch. Today I find it a great deal easier. This is a practice that has been carried out by governments of both parties, and there is a great danger that, because it is a bipartisan practice, it becomes acceptable and a way of doing business. But I would argue that bad behaviour does not constitute convention, and this is bad behaviour.

I will say on the amendment that I think, while it is creative and while I agree with the points that you made, Senator Deacon, in your comments, or most of them — it’s not an area that I’m sufficiently familiar with — but in principle, I agree that we have to come to deal with this issue of privacy and the regimes under which political parties are governed.

My own view in relation to the roles of the two chambers is that to pass this amendment now, at this stage in the process and in relation to the larger picture, would be disproportionate. On that basis, I personally would respectfully vote against the amendment.

Let me turn my attention to what we should do in the alternative, because I think we should not stop there. I think we should address this issue of omnibus legislation. Notwithstanding the rulings of the Speaker in the other place, I don’t believe it does go far enough in addressing what is at issue here. I think that ruling is tantamount to saying that this is beyond question because it was written in the budget document. The issue is: Should it ever have been put in the budget document? My response to that in this particular case is, “No.”

My view is that budgets relate to the fiscal and, more broadly, the economic position of the government. Yes, they do constitute the policy position of the government, but to the extent that they are the vehicle for transporting other legislative priorities, the government should be exercising far more caution and principle than it has been. Again, this is a practice of both governments of long standing. It is not a partisan comment in any way.

I would argue this is not just poor governance, restricting, as it does, the ability of parliamentarians to be proper legislators; it verges on being a question of privilege. It’s on that basis that I think we have a right and a responsibility to pick this issue up and carry it forward. I would venture to guess that it is a question of privilege for our colleagues in the other place as well.

I’m going to suggest that we take up this issue. I don’t know exactly by what means. I think some statistical work about what has happened in the recent past would be useful. I think we should have conversations with our colleagues in the other place. I think we should give due warning to the government that we are taking this issue very seriously and this is not just an annual cri de cœur of anxiety about bad practice, but that we want to address it and we want to change it permanently. I think we should do that sooner rather than later. Thank you, senators.

Would the honourable senator take a question? I would like to ask you if you could help us understand further what you mean by “disproportionate.” Should we vote for this amendment? Please help us understand: disproportionate to what?

Thank you, senator. I would simply refer to the comments about this being a confidence measure, being late in the process, balanced against the fact that, technically, the Senate does have the prerogative or the right to amend the legislation, but that prerogative has to be exercised appropriately. In my judgment, the issues at stake do not justify the use of that prerogative at this stage in the process. That’s what I meant by “disproportionate.”

Will my colleague accept another question? Thank you, Senator Shugart. We are fortunate to have you here because you provide guidelines. I referred to you in my speech yesterday.

If I read between the lines — and I’ve been in politics in Quebec for a few years — if this amendment had been presented, let’s say, in April or May — not five minutes before midnight like this week, but a month or two months ago — is it possible that you would have been more comfortable voting for it? I tried to read between the lines, and five minutes before midnight is not the best timing, I would say, but at the same time, we have to send a message.

Would your position be different if this had happened a month or two before adjourning for the summer?

Unlike you, senator, I have never been in politics, although I’ve been around it. I have learned that in politics it’s very unwise to answer a hypothetical. I do think that after we have explored the possibilities for amending this practice, if that proved fruitless, I personally, without imagining at this point what they might be, would be open to this chamber taking more draconian measures in order to get the attention of the executive branch. What those might be and when those might be, I’m not sure. But I think we should do our homework. We should make a good-faith best effort to address this situation, and then after that we will see.

Senator Shugart, thank you for your remarks. Just recently here, in response to a question, I believe, you said this was a confidence measure; however, of course, the Senate is not a confidence chamber. In the event that Senator Tannas’ amendment on this issue passed, the government would not fall. This is something that then would be sent over to the House of Commons, which is still sitting as we speak right now. Would you acknowledge that though we’re dealing with a budget implementation act, it is within the power of the Senate to provide an amendment to that?

Yes, it technically is, strictly speaking, very much within the rights of the Senate to make this amendment, as Senator Tannas knows. He’s done his homework. I would still take the view personally that it would be a disproportionate use of that right to pass this amendment now.

Senator Shugart, thank you for your comments yesterday and today on senatorial restraint and wisdom. This is an important matter. I can already predict — although we do not want to deal in hypotheticals — that next year at the same time we will be having the same conversation, more or less.

Senator Tannas has said, outside of this amendment, he will launch an inquiry. Do you believe that our excellent Senate Committee on National Finance should undertake a study on omnibus bills and all that is good, bad and ugly around them to facilitate a better position for us by the time next June comes around?

Senator Omidvar, I think the National Finance Committee would be very appropriate. Given the issues at stake, there may very well be other committees of the Senate that would have an interest in the subject. We could organize that and perhaps even broader initiatives that would move this forward.

Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Tannas for having provided us an opportunity today to discuss the practice of putting a lot of other things in a budget implementation act, including amendments to various laws with no financial aspect and, of course, even less budgetary aspects, like taxes. Maybe the carbon tax was a budgetary issue; according to the Conservatives, it’s a tax.

This practice that was supported by this Senate in Parliaments must stop. I’m happy to see a change of opinion amongst many of us here today who were there at the time. I really appreciate the fact that they are changing their mind about this type of budget implementation act.

As I was reported to have said, and rightly so, in The Globe and Mail last week, I’m of the view that this practice continued by the current government, despite its promise to do otherwise, is an abuse of parliamentary process, preventing us from fully debating important issues unrelated to the budgetary aspects of the government’s agenda.

The question, then, is this: What shall we do to stop such a practice by Conservative and Liberal governments? What Senator Tannas is proposing is to add a sunset provision on an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. Colleagues, the provision in question was proposed by the government without any prior consultations with the Chief Electoral Officer or the Privacy Commissioner, as was said at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. In fact, the amendment is nothing but an attempt to derail legal proceedings pending in B.C. introduced by the provincial Privacy Commissioner against all the federal political parties operating in the province of B.C., excluding the Bloc Québécois. All these parties are united in challenging the authority of the B.C. Privacy Commissioner.

In my view, the logical approach will be to propose to delete the provision, but it seems Senator Tannas proposes to keep it but only for two years. This is not a good provision and was not adopted with prior consultations, but, nevertheless, it should be in force for two years. I don’t really understand the approach.

That said, I think our response to the BIA — the budget implementation act — should be in full exercise of restraint, as was pointed out by Senator Shugart yesterday in his very interesting speech. It was a very good maiden speech, sir, and today’s was another one which was very good. Instead of sending an immediate message to the other place at the eleventh hour, I would prefer the adoption of a strong motion or an amendment to our Rules that will be both published well before their coming into force and well before the next budget.

Instead of a prior warning, what is proposed today is an amendment that would likely create havoc at the eleventh hour before the summer recess. This is not, in my opinion, a wise way to press for change. Accordingly, I will vote against the proposed amendment. Thank you.

Honourable senators, let me start by saying how edifying I found this exchange on Senator Tannas’ amendment and how I think it reflects well on this chamber as a place that thinks deeply about important questions. It’s a measure of the quality of Senator Tannas’ amendment, his speech and the speeches of those who have spoken in favour of that amendment that I have to say I agree with so much of what has been said and yet disagree with the amendment and will vote against it. The reason I’m doing so, colleagues, is because, though well intentioned, it is unprincipled. I don’t mean that as an insult. I mean that in the sense that it is inconsistent.

You see, colleagues, there are two separate problems that we’re trying to deal with here. The first is that of omnibus bills, which is recurrent and, it would seem, perennial. As Senator Dalphond has mentioned and as Senator Dasko has intimated, the proper solution to an overly broad bill with items that do not properly belong in it is to excise those items from the bill.

The other conundrum we’re working on is the question of privacy in the Canada Elections Act. That is a distinct and separate issue from the omnibus problem.

The way to deal with that issue is to do what the Senate always does — study it carefully, put it through a committee, debate it in second and third reading, talk to constituents and stakeholders and talk amongst ourselves — not to do it in half an hour or 45 minutes at third reading in the Senate Chamber, at the eleventh hour of a parliamentary sitting.

These two objectives are irreconcilable, and for us to try to find a solution that preserves this clause in an omnibus bill simply by tweaking it is to undermine both our principled objection to omnibus bills and our commitment to detailed and careful study of important issues.

I would suggest, dear colleagues, that if we were to go ahead with this amendment, we would be subject to the kind of criticism that says we are — I don’t want to say hypocritical — not consistent in our opposition to omnibus bills, but we’re also going against the very thing that we say we do best, which is to study issues carefully and deliberately and come to conclusions after deliberate consultation and study have been done. Therefore, colleagues, I will be voting against this amendment. Thank you.

Would Senator Woo take a question?

Yes, of course.

Senator Woo, I have a question for you about another approach. Should we consider that instead of responding to the BIA now, we delay, continue discussions until the fall and adopt it then, so that we conduct the discussions that we feel are necessary around some of these issues?

If you’re referring to a delay of the vote on the BIA, I think the answer is unequivocally no, for all of the reasons you’ve heard from my colleagues, including Senator Shugart. However, if you’re talking about a delay in the sense of coming up with an alternative approach to deal with the substantive question of privacy in the Canada Elections Act, yes, I agree with that. I don’t know what that approach would be. Someone has talked about a motion, a study or a bill. There could be different options. That I would be in support of.

Yes.

Yes, I did. Your question is about the substance of privacy considerations in the Canada Elections Act. The proper way to deal with that as the Senate, as we are reputed to do, is to study that issue in isolation and in its entirety rather than to tack on an amendment to an omnibus bill at the last minute.

I would suggest, Senator Deacon, that whatever favour we may gain with the 96% of Canadians who are pushing for changes, we would lose with an equally large percentage of Canadians who see us as not being principled in our approach to this question.

Senator Woo, would you take a question? It has to do with the comment you made when you said that we were talking about tacking on an amendment at the last minute and you mentioned the consequences of adopting that amendment at the last minute. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recently tabled its report in the Senate. Since the tabling of the report, there has been no comment about or mention of this specific section. I think that people have had enough time to bring this to our attention. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

You bring up another valuable point about why this has not come up sooner. To the extent that we had an opportunity to bring it up earlier and did not, until the last minute, does not reflect so well on us. My principal objection is not so much the last-minute nature of this amendment but the contradictory character, if I can put it that way, of its presentation: on the one hand, accepting the omnibus nature of the bill — and, in a sense, expanding on it by making this amendment — and on the other hand, not fulfilling our duty to, in fact, study this issue carefully before throwing out an amendment at third reading for consideration just a few minutes before a vote.

Senator Woo and I have an understanding. The reason we went this way is that the amendment specifically asks — begs — for a bill to be placed before us to do our study in a full and complete fashion. It preserves what is there and asks that we have a bill. Did you miss that, or am I not catching the nuance?

It is nevertheless an amendment that was argued extensively by you, Senator Tannas, on the grounds that an omnibus bill is intolerable. You cannot have it both ways, to my mind — well, you can, of course, and if this amendment goes through, you will have your way.

On the one hand, if you say that this item does not belong in the bill — because it’s in annex 3, it’s buried on page 400 or wherever it might be and it has nothing to do with the budget — then the principled approach is to say, “Let’s get rid of it.” But to actually play with it and finesse it is basically going against your argument that omnibus bills should not be tolerated.

I accept your point that you are trying to provide finesse to what was intended in the BIA. However, that is exactly my point: The finesse should be done with a lot more study and consideration rather than thrown on the floor at the last minute.

Senator Woo, will you take a question?

Yes, of course.

Thank you. You have correctly made the point that there are two separate issues here. One of the issues is the fact that these omnibus bills, as you’ve just said, are intolerable. I would guess that many of our colleagues would agree with this observation.

Would you be willing to put forward an amendment removing all reference to the Elections Act in Bill C-47, given the fact that we may not need more study of the particular issue, which is omnibus bills: good or bad? Many of us would agree we don’t need to study this topic. We would probably agree that this is not good. Would you be willing to put forward an amendment to that effect? Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dasko. No, I would not because if making an amendment to the current provision on the Canada Elections Act is already an excess of enthusiasm, I would say that removing that clause altogether would be even more so.

Senator Woo, I think I may have missed a little bit here getting the translation, but I believe the exchange you were having with Senator Dasko was about how this issue of removing the Canada Elections Act — or that it’s not an appropriate place to have this provision in a budget implementation act — and I believe there was some discussion to indicate that this hasn’t been discussed in the chamber prior to today.

I just wanted to bring to your attention, Senator Woo, in case you didn’t realize that, actually, is not correct. Senator Loffreda mentioned it in passing in his second reading speech about how the Legal Committee presented a report from our chair, Senator Cotter, which referenced this and Criminal Code amendments that were included in the budget implementation act. We made observations indicating it was not appropriate.

Then, after Senator Loffreda made that remark, I brought that to his attention to say specifically that these Criminal Code provisions and the Canada Elections Act should not be in here.

Do you recognize that perhaps you missed that because this has been a matter that we have raised in debate in this chamber?

Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

The point is that we haven’t studied the Canada Elections Act, its implications for privacy and how to craft an appropriate privacy regime for political parties. I think that assertion is accurate.

I will be brief. But I do want to make a few comments. Senator Woo will be the most surprised person in this chamber when I say I agree entirely with everything Senator Woo said today. I also agree with everything Senator Shugart said. I’m in agreement today. I’m in a good mood.

Colleagues, we have spent I don’t know how many hours of debate on an amendment that the sponsor of the amendment said doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of making it, and here we are debating it. We have the government leader who doesn’t know how to take yes for an answer when he already has the sponsor telling him that this will never pass, and then he gets up and gives us every reason why we should vote for it because that’s actually what the government leader did. He said we should not do this because it’s the eleventh hour; the House might not be able to deal with it. The House might be rising so they won’t be able to deal with this issue.

The fact of the matter is, colleagues, the House doesn’t care what we do here, which is evident by when they send us the bills. We don’t have supply. We want to rise tomorrow and we don’t have supply now. We don’t have Bill C-18 now. We’re going to have to vote on a message on Bill C-18; we don’t have it, yet we want to rise tomorrow.

Senator Gold somehow defends what this government is doing. This government over there cannot organize a two-car parade, and we are somehow supposed to carry their water.

Then Senator Gold and Senator Loffreda, quite frankly, both said, “But trust this government.” I haven’t seen anything in the last couple of weeks that makes me want to trust this government. We have ministers and the Prime Minister telling us things that aren’t true, and yet we’re supposed to trust them.

We have the right to amend legislation here, no matter what time of the day, no matter what time of the month and no matter what time of the sitting. For the government leader to say, “Don’t do it now because they won’t have time to deal with it,” they don’t really care if we have time to deal with supply; we don’t have it. So are we going to deal with it on Friday? Are we going to come back here after Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and deal with it? We don’t know; we don’t have it. But we’re supposed to not do something on the eleventh hour.

Senator Tannas and I talked earlier, and since it was me saying this, I don’t think it was confidential. I told Senator Tannas I wasn’t going to vote for this amendment. Now I find myself in a quandary. I may change my mind. I’m sure if my colleagues are going to support whatever I do, then Senator Deacon is going to say we’ve all been whipped.

As Senator Tannas said at the start of his speech, he was making it as Senator Tannas, not as the leader of the Canadian Senators Group. That’s what I’m doing here today. But one thing I do tell you, colleagues, if there is a standing vote on this and there is a bell, then myself and my colleagues are going to go up and we will discuss the pros and cons of this bill. When we come back, we may all vote the same way, and we may not. We will put our arguments forward.

For people to say we are whipped because we are like-minded, I actually find that offensive. Like-minded people do like-minded things. That’s why we’re all Conservatives because, at least philosophically, we are on the same page. But we don’t always vote the same. If Senator Deacon wasn’t in the far corner, he may occasionally see that some of us vote differently than others.

We have unanimous consent motions that we’re told all the time we are supposed to vote in favour of because it was unanimously decided over there, so we should vote for it here because it was unanimously decided over there. And I’m arguing both sides of the coin here, just in case anyone was wondering about that.

Colleagues, we had unanimous consent on this issue. One thing I did agree with Senator Gold on, four parties over there voted on this and decided this should be there. I don’t agree with omnibus bills. I do agree that both parties in the other place have done that, without question. I was part of the government when we received omnibus bills and it made it very difficult because there were parts of a bill sometimes that I didn’t want to support, but I had to support it because it was an omnibus bill.

I don’t believe in defeating budget bills. I don’t think this would defeat the budget bill, I agree there. But it was unanimously decided by the four elected parties over there that this should be where it is.

Senator Shugart was quite correct when he said we need to find a way of correcting some of this. One of the ways that we need to have of correcting this is to have a government leader in the Senate tell the House leader in the other place that here is the last date we’re going to deal with your legislation. If you don’t have it to us by that date, you’re not going to get it through, and that includes the budget.

They are treating us with contempt. I was told on Twitter — before Bill C-21 was introduced in this chamber, the parliamentary secretary in the other place tweeted Senator Plett should stop stalling Bill C-21. It had not yet been introduced. That’s the way they treat us.

Then the day after my good friend made his speech, on June 1, the minister tweeted again saying Senator Plett should stop stalling Bill C-21. Tomorrow, we’re going to have at least two speeches on Bill C-21 before I’m speaking, according to the list, and yet I’m stalling it. That’s the way they treat us.

Then Senator Gold says to us, but trust us. I’m sorry, I don’t trust them.

Now I’m going to see what my colleagues tell me what to do, how they whip me. They might convince me to vote one way on this bill, they might convince me to vote the other way. I’m not sure how I’m going to vote. I’m going to let them tell me how to vote. We’re going to discuss this properly.

But colleagues, let’s not defeat this amendment because it’s late in the day or late in the chamber. Let’s defeat the amendment if the amendment deserves defeating, and I’m leaning towards that. But not because it’s the last hour of the last day. They can be here. If they want to send us legislation this late, then maybe they have to spend a couple of extra days here. That’s not our concern. We do our job; they do theirs.

Colleagues, I’m going to leave it at that. I will vote my conscience in due course, but others want to speak. I know Senator Dupuis suggested she wanted to speak. But when the leader says that we should do things because we want to get out of here — so do I; it’s 10 to 5 — if we want to get out of here this week, let’s make our speeches and move on. Thank you.

Did you know that former Senator Carstairs, when she was leader of the Liberal caucus in the Senate a number of years ago, told the other place that they had to have all of the legislation they wanted to pass in the chamber by a specific date? It might have been June 1. I can’t quite remember, but maybe Senator Ringuette remembers. In fact, that year, the Senate rose before the House, because all the legislation they had given us by, let’s say, June 1 was passed and we left.

The members of the House of Commons were not very happy, but that didn’t happen the next year because we had all the legislation by the date that Senator Carstairs specified.

So do you think that would be a good idea?

Thank you very much for that question, Senator Cordy.

Let me just say that the first year I was here, we sat until the third week of July, because we didn’t have somebody that did that. I was reminded a number of times of what Senator Carstairs had done. The Prime Minister, of course, was Jean Chrétien, and she absolutely did that. I applaud her for it. I have reminded our leader in the Senate a number of times that maybe we should do that. I think I reminded my cousin Senator Harder of that when he was the leader as well, so, yes, I would certainly support doing that.

Honourable senators, it’s hard to follow Senator Plett on his good days.

I have no prepared speech, but I took note of your different comments, and I feel compelled to put in my two cents’ worth.

Senator Tannas, I totally agree with you in regard to omnibus bills. You and I were from both in different partisan caucuses when our partisan leaders agreed to accept omnibus bills. That was something like 17 years ago and omnibus bills have not stopped since.

We brought up the issue at the Rules Committee, and the Rules Committee was operating and is still operating on consensus basis. We had no consensus, so we didn’t resolve the issue of how to deal with omnibus bills in the Senate.

We’re not about to tell the other place how to deal with their legislation and how they want to do it, but we are masters of our own chamber. Every year in December and June, we talk about omnibus bills. We make remarks in our different committee reports about omnibus bills. Yet we go home and then we come back, and we’ve forgotten until the next omnibus budget bill.

So, colleagues, can we agree — at least the members of the Independent Senators Group, and as per Senator Plett’s statement earlier, he would agree with us — that when we come back in September, it is going to be our first order of priority to agree on how to deal with omnibus bills, and send that message to the other place so they know well in advance where we stand, not at the eleventh hour?

That is the first issue that we’re discussing.

By the way, isn’t it nice that we take on an issue, and we don’t stop after 15 minutes and wait two weeks to continue that discussion? Isn’t it nice that we entertain an issue, and we can all voice our opinions and deal with the situation?

That is another thing that we, as an independent Senate, have to start to deal with: How do we manage our discussions and how do we move forward with legislation and motions? Enough is enough of this “a little bit here and a little bit there.” Enough is enough of that.

Okay, I’m going off topic. But Senator Plett got me all energized.

The other issue that is really the crux of your amendment is in regard to the Canada Elections Act. Unfortunately, in all the discussions so far, nobody has brought forth the very important issue in regard to that. It is our primary document that creates democracy in Canada.

In order to create that democracy in Canada, political parties need funding. The names of people who fund political parties — because it’s in the Canada Elections Act — will be public and transparent, because our democracy demands that. If it is public and transparent, it is also subject to a cap; individuals are maximized per year regarding donations to political parties.

How can you ensure that Elections Canada will make sure that those maximums are respected? How can we make sure that our political parties are transparent in regard to donations? It is through the Canada Elections Act and through the transparency therein.

Why do you think the other place, so far, has not been able to deal with this issue of privacy versus democratic transparency?

I understand there will be pressure on them to deal with this, but I honestly believe that Canadians who make donations to a political party understand that the system will make their names public, along with the amount of their donations. That has been on the books for 30 years.

So that’s not the issue.

How will the political parties in the other place that face elections and need to make amendments to the Canada Elections Act be able to differentiate the personal information of their donors and the transparency of political party funding and the survival of our democracy?

Colleagues, I would definitely say that the other place cannot deal with this issue because of the four political parties in the other place — not in the time frame that you would like, Senator Tannas. It is mission impossible. I think they’re all just getting their heads around this because of the process in B.C.

Senator Tannas, I believe that your intentions are good. But this is not the place to move your intention in regard to getting this privacy issue done and, Senator Deacon, in regard to personal privacy. This is not where it will be accomplished.

The third message I want to convey — and I’m taking this opportunity to say so — is that when we send a message from the Senate in regard to the budget bill, it better not be on a Canada Elections Act issue. It better be on an issue that is concerning every Canadian’s pocketbook. Then, we will, from my perspective, be justified in making an amendment and sending a message to the other place in regard to what we think. It’s like how Senator Shugart put it when he said “disproportionate” — I agree with him.

Therefore, Senator Tannas and colleagues, I will not be voting for this motion on the grounds of my statement.

Thank you.

Will Senator Ringuette take a question?

We’ve had a good discussion on the issue of omnibus bills. You’ve said that this should be the first item, or we should deal with it pretty soon. I’ll note a few ideas that have been put forward: Senator Tannas suggested that he would launch an inquiry. Senator Shugart suggested that the National Finance Committee should review it. There has been a suggestion for a motion. Senator Cordy talked about having a deadline for when we would accept the bills.

Are these the types of items that you think we can take to reach a conclusion and to make our voice clear in order to let the House know how we want to proceed on omnibus bills going forward?

Thank you for the question. I believe that all of the items you’ve listed should be part of the discussion and part of the analysis. If we are an independent chamber, then we should be able to come to an understanding on the kind of work we want to perform.

I suppose the other question is this: Is the government putting forth omnibus bills because of the growing inefficiency in the House of Commons? If that is the case, then we have to force them to also deal with their inefficiency — for the sake of democracy.

Perhaps sometimes I have too much of an opinion for my own good. Thank you.

Yes, Senator Deacon, I am aware of those issues — having been an elected person, and having worked in a partisan caucus. The Privacy Commissioner has his specialty in regard to privacy, but the Canadian people want transparency in our political parties and in our democratic process. How will the other place — with all four political parties — be able to justly balance the two? I wish them a lot of luck.

Senator Dupuis, did you want to ask a question?

Yes, I have a question.

Would Senator Ringuette take a question?

Yes.

I have a question for Senator Ringuette, rather than prolonging the debate on this issue.

Senator Ringuette, do you think that we, in the Senate, have done everything we can to deal with the issue of including bills on issues separate from budgetary matters in omnibus bills?

With respect to this very specific issue, which is being discussed here at the last minute — rather than in the committee that dealt with this matter, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs . . . The Legal Affairs Committee had many opportunities to examine amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Do you think it’s reasonable to say that an amendment is needed at this point in time, when we haven’t pushed further to do everything we can in the Senate? Do you think it is reasonable to say that we should amend a budget implementation bill right now because we don’t like omnibus bills?

Senator Ringuette, you have 55 seconds left.

No. Thank you.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Those in favour of the motion, please say “yea.”

Those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

I think the “nays” have it.

I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on the length of the bell?

We will return at 5:52 p.m. Call in the senators.

Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock when we will resume unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Your Honour, there were some conversations and discussions among the leaders of all the caucuses and groups. In light of the pressing agenda that we have today and tomorrow, we have come to an agreement.

Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, I move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, the evening suspension provided for in rule 3-3(1) be for only one hour on June 21 and 22, 2023, starting at 6 p.m.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon Senators: Agreed.

Just to be clear, Senator Plett is asking that if we see the clock, it will be for one hour today and tomorrow. Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?