Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by deleting point 10, dealing with the membership of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Honourable senators, I don’t like to find myself in a situation where I feel empathy for the government leader, but here I am. This new Parliament is going from bad to worse.

For starters, I want to say for the record that I thought the agreement made among leaders was a compromise that was consistent with compromises that have been made in previous parliaments, very consistent on a wide range of issues. Nothing in here is new. All of a sudden, we have outrage because the government made what I considered a reasonable request.

We also have to understand that what is going on here is at the core of what I’ve been arguing about for a decade now in regard to this experiment. Honourable colleagues, when you play a hockey game, and you put 12 players on the ice simultaneously, and they’re wearing 12 different coloured jerseys, it’s pretty hard to play a hockey game. I think we all agree. Hockey in this country is played between two teams wearing usually red, blue or white jerseys, and usually the blue jerseys from Toronto are losing — or orange, yes, indeed. That is normally how we play our national sport.

I also want to remind colleagues that our Westminster system of Parliament, which includes this chamber because this chamber — I’ve said a thousand times — is modelled after the Westminster House of Commons. If you look at section 18 of the Constitution, we have the same rights, privileges, obligations and functionality as the House of Commons in Westminster on the other side and on this side.

As the government leader appropriately pointed out, in our system, there is no separation between the executive branch and Parliament. The executive branch, the Crown, has a fundamental place in the House of Commons on the other side and a fundamental place even on this side, despite the experiment of the previous prime minister. That’s why the government leader, modelled as the Government Representative, and the GRO, have certain privileges in this institution that no one can take away, especially an appointed chamber, just like the opposition has a fundamental role to play.

I think, again, despite the fact that we have degrees of independence, the government and the opposition are in place in this parliamentary system based on a mandate from the electorate, the people in this country. Right now, when the government wants to have eyes and ears on the steering committee of an important committee — and I get the sense of why they want it. There’s important legislation coming down the pipeline, if you excuse the phrase, because we clearly understood the people of Canada in the last election — the 45% plus who voted for the governing party and the 41% who voted for the opposition party — that’s 87% of Canadians who clearly wanted a particular agenda advanced.

And the government is showing up to the upper chamber and the Parliament of Canada and they’re saying, “We’ve allowed for a tremendous amount of flexibility, but we’d like to have some non-voting eyes and ears on a steering committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which, of course, we hope will be fundamental going forward when it comes to the agenda of the government and that we can all contribute to making sure that it gets steered towards the right direction.”

I think that the proposition of the government was interpreted in that fashion by all leaders, including your own, Senator Quinn. I don’t think we looked that there was any nefarious agenda on the part of the government to circumvent this institution and try to belittle independent senators in any way, shape or form other than advance the agenda millions and millions of Canadians have given both political parties. And, I assume, once that agenda is tabled — even in the other house — you will find, I suspect, a great degree of unanimity.

So, at some particular juncture, we have to stop with this idea that somehow an independent group of senators will circumvent the will of this chamber and the role in this chamber of the government.

It’s ridiculous — for the longest time we’ve heard this argument when it comes to the role of the opposition, but now it’s even creeping in in terms of the role of the government.

Now, the previous Prime Minister decided to try something with goodwill, again, I suspect, and with good intentions, and they gave a lot of leeway and flexibility. But there comes a point in time when that leeway and flexibility become obstructionist to putting forward legislation.

I make an appeal to all members in this chamber that we should accept that we are not a republican parliamentary system. We’re not the United States of America where there is a separation of the executive and the legislative branch, and I don’t want to be like the United States of America. It was also crystal clear that the vast majority of Canadians don’t want anything of the American parliamentary system.

Our parliamentary system is at the core of our identity, of our democracy. It’s what we’re all about. It’s probably the greatest contribution that came from one of the two founding people, along with our Indigenous people, in this country. I think we should cherish it, we should protect it. I think the government has a significant role to play and it’s incumbent on all of us to let them play that role.

Now let me just finish on this. The way it’s always worked in this institution — and in the House of Commons on the other side and the other House of Commons, which we basically work off those principles — is that the government and the opposition not only have a role, they dominate the majority of chairs on committees in the Westminster system of government. The opposition has certain assigned chairs of particular committees in the Westminster system of government. Deputy chairs are assigned to the government and deputy chairs to the opposition, and then there’s room for independent parliamentarians. That’s how the system was born and geared to function.

Now, again, Senator Gold and myself — and I know the government and the opposition — want to continue to show deference and find a way to respect the fundamental principles of our system. Independence plays a significant role, but everybody has to understand their role and their place.

Thank you, colleagues.

I would like to join with the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate in pointing out that this was a unanimous decision made jointly by all leaders to ensure the proper functioning of the Senate, considering the very particular situation currently facing the country, as well as the unique nature of the issues and questions that will be specifically discussed at the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

We accepted this request because it was presented to us as exceptional and well justified. It should be noted that, in the interests of independence, none of the three independent groups here represent the government on a steering committee. Those of us who sit on a steering committee cannot address the government or submit reports to it, because those committee meetings are held in camera.

Under the current circumstances, with these issues affecting the government and the entire country, the government leader’s request is extremely reasonable and justified. Let’s not forget that the government does not have a seat on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. For that reason, and to protect the independence of the different groups, I’m very comfortable continuing to support the government’s exceptional and reasonable request. I believe that if we continue to block attempts to give the government its rightful place when appropriate, we will jeopardize the very essence of the independence that got us here — those of us appointed after 2016, anyway.

Thank you.

I’ll be very brief. And I should have mentioned this in my response to questions, colleague, and I apologize.

For all colleagues, as the Rules now stand, it would be open to the Committee of Energy to invite Senator LaBoucane-Benson on steering — any committee can do that. But the rules would, therefore, give that selection member a vote.

And I thank you for your support, Senator Housakos and Senator Saint-Germain, and I hope Senator Tannas, but it was because the leadership collectively understood the request but did not want to give a vote to the deputy, that it found its way into this motion, otherwise it would not have been possible to appoint someone as a non-voting member of steering.

And it was, as Senator Housakos said, a fruit of compromise in order to meet this particular moment. Thank you.

I want to thank Senator Quinn for putting an amendment forward. I won’t be supporting it. I will be voting against the amendment.

As other leaders have said, we do our best to craft a document and come to a consensus on what we think the majority of people will support. That doesn’t mean that everybody will support it.

In the old days, the ones that Senator Housakos referred to, we weren’t told about these kinds of deals, they were just passed. No document came in. There was an agreement that was made. We weren’t briefed. There were questions from Conservatives that didn’t appear they were briefed. Maybe that still happens. I don’t know.

The point is this, we will have to take a little more time with leaders’ deals from time to time in order to secure the majority will of the Senate. This isn’t pearl-clutching time. This is exactly what is supposed to happen.

When I go to my group after a leaders’ meeting, I am fully transparent. We read that document, twice. I reported on it. I heard some grumbling. When we got the document in front of them yesterday, there were people who felt strongly about this.

I don’t have the ability or the inclination to say, “Well, that’s too bad. We know the majority is going to pass this, so shut up.” Say to them, “Come to the chamber. Air your concerns.” We all have votes and independent minds. We’ll listen. We’ll vote today and we’ll move on.

That, to me, is not in any way an aberration of the Westminster system, the American system or any other system of democracy. It puts the power where it’s supposed to be: in the hands of each one of us. Thank you.

Senator Tannas, we have been serving in this place now for a very long time. Once upon a time, we were in the government caucus together. And you keep talking about this period of time when all these deals were being made in secret and it wasn’t transparent. I’d like to know where those deals were made and what period you’re talking about, because when we served together on the Energy Committee, for example, it was chaired, if I remember, by a Conservative senator in your caucus and mine. The deputy chair was a member of the official opposition. The steering member, when we had a majority in this chamber, was coming from the government.

Now, I don’t know; when you have a steering committee made up of government and opposition and they’re setting the agenda at the committee — and the committees were split at that particular point in time between government and opposition; we had a few independents as well, not many, as many as we have today, but we had a good number whom we were taking care of — where is the lack of transparency? Where were the deals being made that you and I were not aware of?

My leadership, colleagues, can testify to the stories we listen to frequently, not just at our leaders’ meetings but here, about Senate leadership, including your predecessor, being able to discuss back and forth, and things got done; they just got done in a spirit of friendship between a government leader and an opposition leader.

We know that was the case. You know that was the case. I know that was the case. The point is this: We aren’t in those days anymore, and we won’t be in them, in all likelihood, for a few decades or at least a decade. They may come back, but right now we are where we are, and we have a significant majority of independent people.

You’re right, by the way. It is kind of odd that we have committees where everyone is represented on the steering committee except for the government. Every group in here is represented. The opposition is represented. The government is not represented.

Now, there are members and lots of people in the different groups that support the government’s point of view, and that gets compensated, but it is a different situation that we are in right now. I don’t find it particularly troubling.

I think what’s being asked for in this case is a little bit odd. Why wouldn’t you ask for it in every single committee if that’s what you want? But all I’m saying is I don’t think there will be very many instances with 105 independent-thinking senators where we’re going to be able to do comprehensive deals and not have somebody want to stick up their hand and object to one element of it and contest it and debate it. That’s healthy. There is nothing wrong with that. Thank you.

Senator Tannas, I don’t remember those dark days in the same fashion as you do. I remember we had robust and very aggressive discussions whenever there were disagreements in our respective caucuses. Sometimes we had so much disagreement that between the two caucuses there would be a bunch of cabals set up in order to drive the point home.

But the thing that’s most important in the process when I compare the glorious 2025 to the dark days of 2012 is we weren’t spending hours and hours on the Senate floor discussing operations — hours and hours, colleagues.

With all due respect, I think this is gloriously very inefficient. When it’s all said and done, I also haven’t seen much difference over the last 10 years. This place continues, when it’s all said and done, to support the government agenda because none of us are so naive to think that an unelected chamber appointed by a couple of prime ministers who are no longer in the House of Commons has the right to curtail or delay the direction of a government and their agenda.

Again, the government can very easily tomorrow morning — and we all know it in here; let’s be honest — create a government caucus in a snap, and they will be well served and they will have a number of people joining that caucus. Let’s not fool ourselves. The only reason we’re getting to play this independence routine in this unelected chamber is because the government is acquiescing to it.

All I’m simply saying, for the legitimacy of this institution, is have some deference towards the government that has given you the opportunity to try this out. That’s the only thing I’m saying.

Thank you for that. And I appreciate exactly what you said, and I believe we’ll get there.

You said much of this yourself.

I have. I believe we’ll get exactly where we need to be, having allowed senators to act independently, ask questions, propose changes, and we’ll get there. I’m sorry if it takes a little longer.

The one thing you didn’t mention about the good days now is the number of amendments that have taken place in this chamber versus the number of amendments that took place prior. There has been independence shown by colleagues here in lots of examples; 20%, roughly, of all government business has been amended. So if this process takes a little longer to get ourselves oriented at the beginning of a session and allow everyone to have their say and propose their ideas, so be it. Thank you.

First of all, regarding those amendments that Senator Tannas just spoke about, the vast majority of those have emanated from the government but were presented by independent senators to correct some of that.

But my question is actually dealing with your comment talking about the old days. You and I used to be seatmates when we were in the government caucus. When we were in the government caucus, wouldn’t you agree that this exact kind of thing, these sessional orders happened then, just as they happen now? Sessional orders are not a brand new invention of this Parliament or the last 10 years. We had sessional orders then, under the Conservative government, just as we have sessional orders of this form now.

I agree that we did. Back in those days, I don’t recall having this kind of debate where senators who don’t agree with something in it would dare be brave enough to speak up.

Honourable senators, if I might borrow Senator Housakos’s analogy of ragging the puck, I don’t want to prolong the debate. I do want to add a point that I don’t believe has been made in that the Assembly of First Nation Chiefs, the federal-provincial-territorial premiers’ table — the Prime Minister is the only person at both those tables. He’s hearing those concerns.

One of the major issues right now and on debate is the country’s agenda to deal with energy and the environment and that particular committee. To me, this is an absolutely reasonable request to have a government representative at the steering committee discussion to ensure that the information that has been heard by the Prime Minister at the first ministers’ and First Nation Chiefs’ tables is conveyed at the steering level when the agenda is discussed.

I do not support the amendment. I would like to see the question called. Thank you.

Are senators ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion in amendment will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion in amendment will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “nays” have it.