MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS — Appropriation Bill No. 4, 2025-26

Honourable senators, the bill we are discussing is not currently available to us. There’s a precedent for this. I remember Senator Marshall once brought up this issue. Given that the bill is not available on the website, it’s hard for us to follow what is happening. I wonder whether we should suspend proceedings, as this has happened in the past: Senator Marshall pointed out that the bill was not available on the website, and proceedings were then suspended.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is difficult for us to form an opinion, given that we don’t currently have access to the bill.

Senator Pupatello, do you want to comment?

If that was a question, if I may — because I know how much history this particular senator has, especially dealing with budgets both provincial and federal — I would say that because the National Finance Committee was able to go into quite a level of detail, in fact, this afternoon and this morning on elements of Supplementary Estimates (C), perhaps the chamber might feel comfortable with the content that is surely expressed in the bill that was just tabled tonight. It was literally just sent over from the House of Commons.

Honourable senators, I think that the intervention by Senator Gignac is wholly appropriate. There has been a tradition, obviously, that there is a bit of a delay sometimes for a short period of time when we receive a bill. However, it’s also reasonable for all members of the chamber to have access to the content of the bill if we’re going to continue to debate.

I, for one, would be more than happy to acquiesce and continue working on this, and I would be happy to speak on this at the next sitting while the bill is posted.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Before we take the adjournment, Senator Batters has informed me that she would still like to ask some questions.

I’m sorry, Senator Housakos, but we have a point of order, so we must deal with it. Also, there was a motion to adjourn the debate.

Regarding the point of order, the Senate approved the second reading of this bill, but the Senate can still approve the adjournment. That’s for the senators to decide.

Honourable senators, I’m rising on the point of order. In essence, we have no information as to when the text of the bill will be available on the internet or electronically. Therefore, on behalf of the government, let me reiterate the suggestion to adjourn the debate on the bill.

Is leave granted?

Is leave granted on the motion of adjournment of the debate? I am hearing “yes.”

Honourable senators, given that we need to deal with the point of order, that is the issue, so the solution to the point of order, from what we’re hearing, is to adjourn the debate on this bill.

My understanding is that my proposal would have to be amended. Senator Batters has a few more questions she wants to ask. We’re willing to let Senator Batters ask her questions, after which we would proceed with the adjournment of the debate so that the text of the document can be made available, since it seems that Senator Batters can ask her questions without having the text in hand.

If I understand correctly, the solution to the point of order would be to allow Senator Batters to ask her questions and then move to adjourn the debate on the bill. Is that correct?

Yes.

Honourable senators, is it agreed?

I wanted to avoid wasting our time on the debate, but if the chamber agrees, I agree too.