QUESTION PERIOD — The Senate
Programming Motion
April 3, 2019
Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Senator Harder, yesterday Senator Smith and I met with you in your office. We had what I thought was a very collegial conversation about moving legislation forward. You were adamant that you were being pressured by Senator Woo and others, that you needed to get Bill C-75 and Bill C-85 done.
Yesterday, your recollection of our agreement on those bills was different than mine. You were of the understanding that I had promised we would move those bills to committee yesterday. That was not my recollection, but in the interest of good faith, I agreed to try and make this change.
Your words to me when I left your office were that if I could make that change, you would not introduce a programming motion. I had never heard of a programming motion.
I kept my part of the bargain. You did not. In complete contradiction of your word to me, you tabled a programming motion that is seven pages long and impacts 11 bills. You had to have had this text prepared and translated in order for it to go yesterday. This did not happen after our conversation. It had to have happened before.
Senator Harder, at what point did you decide that you were going to bring in your programming motion regardless of an agreement that you had made?
I thank the honourable senator for his question. Without going into all of the details of the conversations I’ve had over the weeks past with all leaders and with the honourable senator himself, let me simply reiterate that I have, over the last number of weeks, spoken about the need to have a programming approach and that hopefully we could get an agreement without a formal programming motion needing to be brought forward. However, it is my responsibility to prepare for all eventualities, and those preparations have been under way for some time.
The dates that I spoke to are the dates that I shared with Senator Smith and other leaders weeks ago, and that I shared with all senators at an open Senate meeting two or three weeks ago, and this ought not to come as a surprise.
But what I did say to the honourable senator is that I wouldn’t blindside him in the chamber. I would let him know if it was my intention to move forward before we sat. So at 12:15, after having had consultations with appropriate people, I indicated that I would be moving forward with a motion, as I did yesterday.
“Don, in the spirit of transparency and the commitment I made at our last meeting this morning, I have had further discussions with other leaders and will be proceeding with a programming motion this afternoon.” After a “commitment I made.”
Senator Harder, much of what happens in this chamber regarding timelines on legislation is decided by negotiation and, when possible, consensus. It is impossible for this process to work without trust and good faith, which you, Senator Harder, have now broken.
Senator, this is not some schoolyard squabble. What you have done impacts the ability to move legislation forward in a manner which respects the traditions, conventions and values of this chamber. Having broken your word to us on this matter, how am I or any other senator in this chamber supposed to trust your word going forward?
Again, I thank my honourable friend for his comments. Let me simply say that my obligation is to continue to work with all leaders to seek agreement to advance legislation and to ensure the comity of this place to perform its duties. I remain dedicated to that task.
