Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Motion in Amendment
May 2, 2019
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended:
1.by replacing the words “report on the serious” by the words “report on the role of political staff in the Office of the Prime Minister in their interactions with parliamentarians, ministers and Attorneys general, including the serious”; and
2.by adding the following new paragraph after the words “Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., M.P.;”:
“That, as part of this study, and without limiting the committee’s right to invite other witnesses as it may decide, the committee invite the following witnesses with potential experience in past matters of alleged political interference, direction and pressure on parliamentarians and their work in the Office of the Prime Minister:
Nigel Wright, former Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister;
Benjamin Perrin, former Special Adviser and Legal Counsel to the Prime Minister;
Ray Novak, former Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister;
The Honorable Senator David Tkachuk;
The Honourable Marjorie LeBreton, P.C., former senator;
The Honourable Irving Russell Gerstein, former senator; and
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., former Prime Minister of Canada;”.
Thank you.
Honourable senators, in amendment it was moved by the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Woo that by —
May I dispense?
Anything on debate? Senator Plett on debate. I’m sorry, I should ask first, Senator Plett.
Did you have a question of Senator Ringuette, Senator Omidvar or did you want to enter debate?
I wanted to adjourn the debate.
That’s not going to happen —
I can do it afterwards. Go ahead.
That’s not going to happen, not for a while.
You know, Your Honour, I’m not very often at a complete loss for words.
Adjourn the debate then.
I actually would be troubled if I would make such a mockery, such an absolute mockery, out of a bill that is of serious nature, to bring people back almost from the grave to come and testify and actually think that is humorous. I think it is shameful that we would make such a mockery out of such a serious situation where Canadians have been cheated, where a Prime Minister is under investigation, both ethically and criminally, where ministers have come down, condemning this Prime Minister and this government. Then for someone to bring people back from five and six and 10 years ago as if that is an amendment. It is not an amendment. It is a completely separate motion. Obviously, Speaker, at the end of day you are going to rule on this and I’m not making this a point of order. This is not even close to an amendment and I am astounded, flabbergasted and offended that somebody would try to make a mockery out of a serious situation.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Senator Omidvar has moved the adjournment. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Omidvar — I’m sorry, I recognized Senator Omidvar first, but I went to the other side to Senator Plett because he rose at approximately the same time. I am now recognizing Senator Omidvar.
With all due respect, it is the obligation of the Chair to ask if there is no more debate before he adjourns. That’s the process in this place, it has been the precedent and the Chair should respect it.
Senator Omidvar moved the adjournment of the debate. I’m going to recognize that and it is the right of the House to reject that if they so wish. It was moved by the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Woo that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
All those in favour of the motion will say “yea.”
All those opposed, “nay.”
In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.
I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on the bell? One-hour bell. The vote will take place at 10:36, call in the senators.
