The Senate

Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by replacing the words “ and Other Business, Commons Public Bills — Second Reading” by the words “Other Business, Commons Public Bills — Second Reading; and Other Business, Reports of Committees – Other” in point 1.

In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Quinn, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ross:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by replacing the words “ and Other Business, Commons Public Bills — Second Reading” by the words “Other Business, Commons Public Bills — Second Reading; and Other Business, Reports of Committees – Other” in point 1.

I thank Senator Quinn for this amendment.

Unfortunately, the government cannot support this amendment.

First of all, the motion that it would amend made the rounds of all the groups and was discussed at meetings of all group leaders. It essentially aims to focus the Senate’s work on government business. This, incidentally, was the whole point of what we were doing when we shared the text of the original motion. It was all to accommodate senators.

I acknowledge that the legislative agenda is daunting. However, the objective was to take senators’ interests into account. That is why we discussed all of these points.

The committees are being called on to do a considerable amount of work, particularly the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which will have to study Bills C-16 and C-25. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work being done in committee and in this chamber.

Naturally, the Senate must decide what should be done. However, as I have said before, the proposed legislative agenda will allow us to finish all the work that needs to get done within a time frame that accommodates all senators.

If we keep adding more rubrics, there is a very serious risk that we won’t be able to complete our work within the agreed-upon time frame, which would allow us to adjourn on Friday, June 19. If our work has not been completed by that date, we will have to keep sitting, because our calendar allows us to do so. The calendar is not an obstacle to continuing to sit. We would therefore need to sit on Saturday, June 20, suspend on Sunday, June 21, for National Indigenous Peoples Day, resume on Monday, June 22 and Tuesday, June 23, suspend again on Wednesday, June 24 for Quebec’s national holiday, and then resume after Wednesday, June 24 if necessary.

We have drawn up a schedule that allows us to complete all our work within the allotted time frame, and this amendment could jeopardize the schedule we have proposed. What’s more, the text of the motion that this amendment seeks to amend was drafted very carefully to ensure that it reflects the consensus reached during the discussions between all the groups.

For these reasons, I would respectfully ask the Senate to reject, oppose and vote against Senator Quinn’s amendment.

Yes.

Thank you for the question, Senator Ross.

At the end of your question, you asked if Senator Quinn’s amendment is essential to these reports being adopted, and the answer is no. If the Senate wishes, we can agree to adopt the reports. The purpose of the original motion is to avoid expanding our focus to include matters other than government business.

The leaders have reached agreements. For example, we agreed to an exception for Bill C-225. Moments from now, I’ll table an amendment to allow the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to meet on Monday evening to complete its study of this bill. Arrangements have been made.

However, if senators want to stick to the calendar, on the whole, it would be best not to adopt a broad amendment like Senator Quinn’s. I say that with the utmost consideration and respect for what the chamber chooses to do. If it chooses to adopt this amendment, I can’t stand in the way. Again, I say this with total sincerity, just like our colleagues who are leaders of each group: What we’re trying to do is work with very open minds to manage the time we have as productively as possible.

To get back to your question, this amendment isn’t essential to considering or adopting the reports. If it is the will of the chamber, leave may be granted to do it without adopting a general amendment to the adjournment motion.

I wonder if Senator Moreau will take a question, my first question to the government leader.

Are you aware that there is agreement in scroll that these matters be dealt with later today? The answer is yes.

The answer is no. I was not at scroll this morning and had many other things to attend to. If there is an agreement, most probably it will be dealt with without this amendment.

Thank you for the question.

I’m puzzled by this. We don’t spend a lot of time on committee reports. We’re not going to be here days and days extra because of committee reports, government leader. Maybe it is your inexperience here in the chamber, but I just don’t see this to be the big issue. I understand we now have some behind-the-scenes answers, so we’re going to pass a motion here right now that isn’t applicable because we’re going to make some other side deals down the road. Great, that is wonderful.

I was going to ask the simple question: Could we have a “wash-up” motion that actually deals with all the non‑controversial reports from committees, and do it once, at the end of the week, before we leave? It shouldn’t be that much trouble, and we can get this sorted out.

But there was this strange resistance that seemed to be going on, and I just didn’t understand it. Now I guess what it is, is we have another deal coming that will sort all of that out.

Was that a question, Senator Tannas?

I do agree. If there is an understanding at scrolls, it is not a problem or an issue. I was not aware of that. We are always there to accommodate; if we can do that, we will do that.

I thank Senator Harder for that precision. I was not aware that there was a deal at scroll this morning. When there is a deal at scroll, most of the time or, I would say, all the time leaders comply with this.

I appreciate the commentary and the question from Senator Harder.

The point that I think I’d like to emphasize is I haven’t been in this chamber as long as some of our other members, many of our members, but I’m at a loss as to where the amendment, from your response, would cause us to have to sit possibly tomorrow, Saturday, maybe next Saturday, maybe Monday, Tuesday, not on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, then come back.

First, in my brief experience here, I have never seen time consumed on reports to such an extent that it would require the time to be put forward.

Second, there may have been a deal at the scroll meeting that many of us are not aware of, but if this motion passes as is without the amendment, then that deal falls off the table.

I say that because the motion is clear: Next week we will deal with the business of the government and three private members’ bills from the other place. All I’m suggesting is that you give us a chance to respect the work that my colleagues and I do at committee and allow the reports to come in and be adopted. It’s not the time-consuming exercise that you’re suggesting —

Do you have a question, Senator Quinn?

Do you agree with my commentary? If not, why not?

I agree that we should be able to proceed by consent. I understand that there is already an agreement regarding the reports in question, which I will certainly respect in my capacity as the Government Representative in the Senate.

You have more experience in this chamber than I do, and so does Senator Tannas. Not only does Senator Harder have more experience in this chamber than I do, but he has also served in this role. He could also attest to the fact that information shared in the morning is not necessarily communicated immediately, and sometimes I only learn about it at the end of the day, since the days are quite busy.

It would be great if we didn’t waste any time and if we could sit and complete our work sooner. I have no objection to that. All I’m saying is that we don’t need this amendment to achieve that.

Senator Moreau, will you take a supplementary question?

Yes.

You just mentioned that this morning a deal was made, and I’m not aware of that. Our liaison says that there is no deal that he is aware of, and he is part of that process.

My question is this: You learned about this amendment late in the day. This amendment was shared with your office this morning. It’s not an overly casting amendment. Again, the time that you’ve suggested it would take to deal with and adopt two or three reports would allow our members to have their work heard by adoption. We should rethink that and allow our chamber to decide whether we want to do this or not. Would you agree with that?

This is the last thing I will say on the subject because I feel like I’m repeating myself.

If there are deals, then we are prepared to abide by them. We want to focus on government business, and if we proceed by agreement and consent, I don’t think that the amendment in question is necessary.

Senator Moreau, will you take a question?

Yes.

Senator Moreau, perhaps my question will clarify the order of what happened.

Are you aware that at scroll we discussed the two reports that Senator Ross is referring to? I did say that I was going to speak to my caucus and then communicate to the chamber and the scroll team as to whether we were ready for the question.

There were a lot of moving pieces, including an unexpected message from the House. It could be that it was an error on the part of my office to communicate fully to the scroll team because there are many people involved. Senator Black, who is the deputy leader designate in his group, may not have received that message. We are ready for questions on both of those reports today. There might be some confusion about that.

I respect what Senator Quinn has said about the importance of these reports, but are you aware that we are ready? I have communicated that to my counterparts, and I apologize if the communication is a little bit delayed. Perhaps it would have prevented —

Let’s adopt them and move on.

Senator, are you aware of some of these conversations, or lack thereof, that may have happened today? We are ready.

Senator Martin, you don’t have to apologize for any communication errors. I will not hold that against you.

We are going to keep things very simple. I was not at the meeting this morning. Unfortunately, the Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate had to leave for family reasons. I hope that everything will turn out okay there. If we are ready to vote, then let’s vote. There’s nothing to worry about. I am trying to get as much consensus as possible right now.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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