Honourable senators, obviously, I support the point of order raised by Senator Plett. I think it is important to reread the original proposal, which involves giving the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs a mandate to examine the actions that undermined the independence and integrity of the administration of justice. That is the proposed mandate. That is the purpose of the motion, to ask a Senate committee to look into the matter.

The amendment proposed by Senator Harder would delete all of the text after the word “That,” and I will come back to what the rule book says about such motions later.

The motion proposed by Senator Harder calls for the Senate to acknowledge that the Ethics Commissioner has statutory powers and will fulfill his mandate. That has absolutely nothing to do with a request from the Senate to give a committee a mandate to examine an issue. He is proposing that we replace that mandate with a simple declaration that says, “You know, the Ethics Commissioner is currently looking into the matter.” Period. That is essentially a rejection of the Senate’s motion to look into the matter.

I was not in the chamber when the amendment was brought forward, but I invite you to reread Senator Harder’s argument. I will summarize to save time, but he began by basically saying that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is pretty busy and that it has bills to study, and he listed them. He wasn’t sure it would have time to study the matter and said it should concentrate on bills. He said that this matter is currently being examined by the House of Commons and the Ethics Commissioner. He went even further and asked whether it would really be worth it to conduct a third investigation. He asked if we really need to embark on a third investigation.

It was clear from the beginning that he opposed the motion when he said that the Legal Affairs Committee does not have time to study this matter, that the House of Commons is already examining it, and that the Ethics Commissioner already has a mandate to examine it under the law. He did not think the Senate should give the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs a mandate to examine this.

After all that, he brought forward his amendment. He therefore opposes the motion and, obviously, he is trying to use his amendment to defeat the motion. That is what he wants to do.

As Senator Plett pointed out, the rule book explains when an amendment must be found out of order. On page 541 of Bosc, 2017 edition, it states:

An amendment should be so framed that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and internally consistent.

It goes on to say:

[It] introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion with notice.

The proposed motion is essentially a new one. It’s a declaratory motion calling on us to recognize that the Ethics Commissioner is conducting his study. It’s a new proposal, a declaratory motion, not of a motion giving a committee a mandate to conduct an investigation.

This amendment is therefore out of order, and note 31 cites some rulings from the debates.

However, it gets worse, or better, depending on which side you’re on:

It is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion.

I would like to draw your attention to the part that says, “would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion”. If the amendment were adopted, it would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion because it would be the same as not giving the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee the mandate to investigate. That is exactly the desired outcome. Here again, Bosc cites a number of decisions that explain how to proceed.

Note 33 reads as follows:

Expanded negative amendments strike out all the words after “That”.

Take a look at the amendment, which proposes replacing all words after “That”. The text of the amendment, which is exactly like the wording identified as unacceptable, would result in the total defeat of the main motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that Senator Harder is against the main motion. He spoke out against it and moved a motion that would amend the motion in such a way as to produce the defeat of the main motion, replacing Senate committees’ mandate to investigate with a simple recognition of the power of an officer of Parliament, a power that, under the act, would be totally useless because the act does not give it any additional legal effect.

It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that you must find Senator Harder’s amendment out of order.

Just to add to that, Robert’s Rules of Order also says that:

An amendment changes the wording of a motion, but it makes a good idea better, or a bad idea more palatable. It’s used to perfect a motion before a vote, and therefore an amendment must be relevant or germane to the motion. If it makes the motion a rejection of the original motion, it is not proper, nor is it in order.

Senator Harder’s amendment does just that.

Are there any other senators that wish to comment on the point of order raised by Senator Plett?

I’m going to need your help, Mr. Speaker. When a point of order leads to a discussion on a situation that is complex and not necessarily as obvious as one might suggest, does the Speaker take the matter under advisement?

Yes, that is correct.

May I continue since your answer confirms to me that I understood correctly?

Yes.

It is my view that the motion that was moved a few moments ago deserves consideration. I invite you to consider this situation as complex enough to justify your taking it under advisement. Thank you.

I wanted to make a few comments in response to Senator Dupuis’ statement that this is a complex matter. When I look at this and when I look at this particular motion, this does not appear to be a complex matter at all. It’s a clear case that the Senate Government Leader with his amendment motion is almost 100 per cent gutting the main motion.

When we look at this particular motion, this would be all that is left of Senator Smith’s original motion: Resuming debate on the motion of Honourable Senator Smith seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin that ...

Everything else, almost an entire page of text is deleted. It leaves nothing.

I also wanted to bring to senators’ attention, because I know many of us may have had meetings all day long and may not know this. Today the Liberal MPs on the House of Commons Justice Committee did, in fact, close their inquiry on the SNC-Lavalin scandal on budget day while the media was in lock up. So there will be no additional witnesses who were potentially alleged to have interfered with the administration of justice will be called, no additional testimony from Jody Wilson-Raybould, no answers for Canadians, and Canadians deserve answers. It is for these reasons that I support Senator Plett’s point of order on this matter. Thank you.

I thank senators for their input. I thank Senator Plett for raising the point of order. I will take the matter under advisement.