The Senate
Motion in Amendment
June 23, 2020
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended:
1.by replacing point number 4 by the following:
“4. by replacing rules 6-3(1)(a), (b). (c) and (d) by the following:
“Leaders and facilitators
(a) any leader or facilitator shall be permitted up to 45 minutes for debate;
Sponsor of a bill
(b) the sponsor of a bill shall be allowed up to 45 minutes for debate at second and third reading;
Critic of a bill
(c) the critic of a bill shall be allowed up to 45 minutes for debate at second and third reading;
Spokesperson on a bill
(d) the spokesperson on a bill from each recognized party and recognized parliamentary group, except those of the sponsor and critic, shall be allowed up to 45 minutes for debate at second and third reading; and
Others
(e) other Senators shall speak for no more than 15 minutes in debate.”;”;
2.in point number 12, by deleting the words “, but shall not vote”;
3.by deleting current point number 13 and renumbering current points number 14 to 18 as points number 13 to 17; and
4.in current point number 17, by replacing sub-point (a) by the following:
“(a) by replacing the words “(Porte-parole d’un projet de loi)” at the end of the definition of “Critic of a bill” by the words “(Critique d’un projet de loi)”;”.
In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Campbell that the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended, one by replacing point number 4 by the following — shall I dispense?
Senator Woo, on debate.
I will speak briefly to Senator Tannas’s amendments and then ask to take the adjournment for the balance of my time when I finish.
It is obviously too soon for me to give a full speech to respond to Senator Tannas, but I just want to thank him for his very thoughtful intervention.
I would say this as an initial response: From what I heard, he has reiterated the importance of substantive equality among recognized groups in the Senate, and all of his amendments preserve that crucial principle that I tried to convey in the motion, which is to have equality of Senate groups.
He has modified the formula somewhat in a number of cases by what I would call “levelling up” rather than levelling down. This is a term that I used in my speech, and the specific example that he gave, I believe, has to do with ex officio status, whereby he believes the leaders and facilitators have the ability to vote on committees as opposed to my version, which takes away the vote from those same leaders and facilitators.
It’s in a sense six and half a dozen. I commend it to all of you to reflect on and to think about, but it does not change the fundamental idea of substantive equality that I was seeking in the motion.
His other innovation, if I can put it that way, is to reintroduce to the motion nomenclature that preserves the pedigree and the history of our institution, particularly the nomenclature around government and opposition, and nomenclature around the sponsor and the critic.
Again, this is an issue of tradition and of respect for the institution, but it’s not an issue of inequality because he also, I believe, has said that while we do want the opposition to continue to name the critic, other groups have the right to name what we call “spokespersons” and to have the same rights as the critic.
On the face of it, these proposed amendments are very much in the spirit of what the motion originally seeks to do. Of course, we will reflect on them more carefully. I invite all of you to do the same. I look forward to the continuation of this debate when we next pick it up.
