The Members convened were:

The Honourable Senators

ArnotAtaullahjanAucoinAudetteBattersBellemareBoehmBoyerBussonCardozoCarignanClementCordyCormierCotterCoyleCuznerDagenaisDalphondDaskoDeacon (Nova Scotia)Deacon (Ontario)DeanDowneDuncanDupuisForestFrancisGagnéGerbaGignacGoldGreeneHarderHartlingHousakosKingstonKlyneKutcherLaBoucane-BensonLankinLoffredaMacAdamMarshallMartinMassicotteMcCallumMcNairMcPhedranMégieMiville-DechêneMocklerMoncionMoodieOhOmidvarOslerPatePatterson (Nunavut)Patterson (Ontario)PetitclercPettenPlettPoirierProsperQuinnRavaliaRichardsRinguetteRossSaint-GermainSeidmanSimonsSmithSorensenTannasVernerWallinWellsWhiteYussuff

The Members in attendance to business were:

The Honourable Senators

ArnotAtaullahjanAucoinAudetteBattersBellemareBoehm*BoisvenuBoyer*BureyBussonCardozoCarignanClementCordyCormierCotterCoyleCuznerDagenaisDalphondDaskoDeacon (Nova Scotia)Deacon (Ontario)DeanDowneDuncanDupuisForestFrancisGagnéGerbaGignacGoldGreeneHarderHartlingHousakosKingstonKlyneKutcherLaBoucane-BensonLankinLoffredaMacAdamMarshallMartinMassicotteMcCallumMcNairMcPhedranMégieMiville-DechêneMocklerMoncionMoodieOhOmidvarOslerPatePatterson (Nunavut)Patterson (Ontario)PetitclercPettenPlettPoirierProsperQuinnRavaliaRichardsRinguetteRossSaint-GermainSeidmanSimonsSmithSorensenTannasVernerWallinWellsWhiteYussuff

The first list records senators present in the Senate Chamber during the course of the sitting.

An asterisk in the second list indicates a senator who, while not present during the sitting, was in attendance to business, as defined in subsections 8(2) and (3) of the Senators Attendance Policy.

PRAYERS

The Senate observed a minute of silence in memory of former senator the Honourable Gerald Comeau, P.C.

Senators’ Statements

Some Honourable Senators made statements.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Presenting or Tabling Reports from Committees

The Honourable Senator Wallin presented the following:

Tuesday, December 5, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has the honour to present its

TENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, Canada, has, in obedience to the order of reference of November 2, 2023, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1.Clause 1, page 1: Replace line 25 of the English version with the following:

“pal Corporation of Ottawa-Cornwall”.

2.Clause 2, page 2: Replace line 15 of the English version with the following:

“poration of Ottawa-Cornwall as amalga-”.

3.Clause 3, page 2: Replace line 25 with the following:

“of Ottawa-Cornwall” in English and “La”.

Respectfully submitted,

The Honourable Senator Wallin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler, that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Wallin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, tabled the eleventh report (interim) of the committee, entitled Study on Housing Affordability - Interim Findings.—Sessional Paper No. 1/44-2457S.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Dean, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, presented the committee’s eighth report (Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), without amendment but with observations).

(The report is printed as an appendix at pages 2275-2309 (available in print format PDF).)

(The HTML version of the report is available on the committee website.)

The Honourable Senator Yussuff moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, that the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Question Period

The Senate proceeded to Question Period.

Orders of the Day

A message was brought from the House of Commons to return Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform),

And to acquaint the Senate that the Commons has agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this bill, without amendment.

---

Pursuant to the order adopted December 7, 2021, the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson informed the Senate that Question Period with the Honourable Pascale St-Onge, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage, will take place on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, at 2:30 p.m.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Honourable senators, I am prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by Senator Saint-Germain on November 21, 2023. As outlined in her written notice, the issue concerned “attempts of intimidation of Senators that occurred within the Senate Chamber and within the Senate of Canada Building on Thursday, November 9, 2023.” Exceptionally, further arguments on the issue were heard on November 23, 2023.

In dealing with this matter, I will explain one point relating to proceedings on November 9 and summarize the normal process for raising a question of privilege. I will then address some concerns raised in relation to the notices that were given in this case. Finally, the ruling will provide some observations about specific aspects of this situation and review related issues before evaluating the question of privilege in terms of the four criteria that must be met under rule 13-2(1).

I wish to emphasize that it is, in the end, for the Senate to decide how to proceed on this matter. Honourable senators are, together, responsible for the values that shape the work of our house and for ensuring its proper functioning as a public institution that serves Canadians.

At the outset, a short clarification concerning one aspect of proceedings on November 9 is necessary. Senator Clement was recognized in debate on Bill C-234, since she was, in my opinion, the first person to rise. This respected rule 6-4(1). She moved the adjournment of debate, as is allowed by rule 5-7(c). A point of order was then raised concerning recognition in debate. Rule 6-4 governs disagreements on this point. Uniquely, it limits the Speaker’s role to receiving and putting to the Senate a motion that a senator, who was not recognized but who rose at the same time as the recognized senator, “be now heard” or “do now speak.” The Speaker does not rule on which senator should have the floor. That is a decision for the Senate itself.

The required motion to hear another senator was not, however, forthcoming. In its absence, the motion to adjourn debate had to be put. I indicated that I thought the motion to adjourn debate was defeated on a voice vote. Two senators then rose, and, after bells, the motion was adopted by the Senate.

The fact that several senators were yelling loudly, at the same time, without being recognized, made it impossible to provide clarity about proceedings. Even if some senators disagreed with the course of events, nothing could justify such a disproportionate reaction in a chamber that normally prides itself on its role of sober second thought. The exceptional chaos continued while the bells were ringing, and all these events have contributed to the current question of privilege.

Having explained these events from the perspective of the chair, I will now summarize the process most typically used for dealing with a question of privilege. For full details, I refer colleagues to Chapter 13 of the Rules and to Chapter 11 of Senate Procedure in Practice. The normal process involves multiple steps. First, the senator who intends to raise an issue must, under rule 13-3(1), provide written notice before the sitting, “indicating the substance of the alleged breach.” The senator is then recognized during Senators’ Statements to provide oral notice and, under rule 13-3(4), must:

clearly identify the subject matter that shall be raised as a question of privilege and indicate a readiness to move a motion seeking Senate action … or referring it to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.

After these notices, arguments are made later in the sitting to assist the Speaker when considering the matter. The Speaker then normally takes the matter under advisement, as I did, to return later with a ruling.

The Speaker’s role is to determine whether there appears to be a prima facie question of privilege. To use the words of Speaker Kinsella on May 29, 2007, prima facie means that “a reasonable person could conclude that there may have been a violation of privilege.” Maingot, in the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 221, notes that in parliamentary usage this determination “is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter.” The final determination on the issue, and how to deal with it, thus remains for the Senate to make, in response to the motion moved if a prima facie question of privilege is established, which from that point can be referred to as a case of privilege.

During consideration of the current question of privilege there were some concerns as to whether the written and oral notices respected the requirements in the Rules. These requirements were added after a situation in which the notices for a question of privilege provided no detail at all as to the issue to be raised. These requirements have never been understood as necessitating complete details in the notices themselves. Instead, the notices should outline the key points.

In the current case, the written and oral notices indicated the basic issue of concern, when the original events happened, and the general location. Any colleague who was here on November 9, or who consulted colleagues and then watched the broadcast, or read the transcripts, would have understood the basic issues at play.

The content of the notices was in line with normal practice. In addition, any concerns about some details only coming up during arguments on the matter were more than adequately addressed by the fact that the Senate resumed consideration of the question of privilege at a subsequent sitting, allowing additional time for senators to prepare their remarks.

While this is not without precedent, I must caution honourable senators that it should not be taken as a given that arguments can be spread out over more than one sitting. In this case, however, I sought to give all colleagues the opportunity to speak, even if there was repetition on a few points. There was extensive consideration of the question of privilege on November 21, and the request for further input at a subsequent sitting was fair and equitable. This was a case where fulsome reflection was appropriate, since we were, at some level, considering the very nature of how we want this house to function.

I will not attempt to summarize here the arguments, which were eloquent, nuanced, emotional, heartfelt, and deeply personal. Senators have recognized the importance of the issue and have in some cases offered their sincere apologies, which are matters of public record. I thank honourable colleagues for their input on this difficult issue.

Before considering the four criteria that must be met under rule 13-2(1), I now wish to make some comments about particular aspects of this situation.

Senators told us about troubling effects flowing from the events of November 9. I am sure you were all disturbed to hear of these. We must be assiduous in avoiding contributing to a toxic online environment that risks being destructive to our safety, to our society, and to our democracy.

I am reminded of the advice, given on several occasions by Speaker Furey, about taking the time to reflect carefully before engaging on social media in a way that could be harmful.

As he said on May 16 and June 13, 2019:

If it is something you think will be offensive and you are not really sure whether or not it is something that is appropriate, I suggest you do not send, because it reflects poorly, not just on the people who are doing it, but on the whole chamber.

I urge honourable senators to consider potential real-life consequences on the reputation of the Senate, and impacts on our families, our staff, and each other, before engaging on social media. The fact that inappropriate online content — not only in relation to the events of November 9 — has led some senators and staff to feel under attack points to the significant, even if unintended, consequences of what is posted. In particular, as many senators noted, we must be mindful that social media can be especially harmful towards women, racialized Canadians, and other equity-seeking groups, who are often disproportionately targeted.

The Senate is a chamber that prides itself on its work to protect minority rights. Our membership first opened to women following the Persons Case in 1929. We now better reflect the full ethnic and cultural diversity of our country. As such, we must do our utmost to avoid any action that could be seen as condoning or encouraging personal attacks against any individual, whether we are in the Senate workplace, online or in our personal lives.

This said, we must, of course, be most cautious about the risk of unduly limiting freedom of speech, which is a key principle in our society. For this reason, we would not normally deal with social media matters through the route of privilege. Unfortunate comments posted on social media should not rush us into changing this principled approach. But, as we exercise free speech, let us keep in mind that, while we often tend to focus on what is said, we cannot lose track of how words and acts are understood by the recipient, and how they are perceived by other third parties — whether physically present or on social media platforms.

Colleagues have noted that some aspects of what occurred on November 9 may raise issues involving the Senate Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy. The fact that actions happened within the Senate Chamber, in some cases while the bells were ringing for a vote, does not mean they are necessarily exempt from that policy. Others noted possible links to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, which imposes obligations on all senators to act with the highest standards of dignity inherent in the position of senator. There may therefore be parallel issues relating to ethics and harassment that could be dealt with under other, separate, mechanisms.

The Senate is evolving, and it is not the same institution it was only a few years ago. The composition and culture of the Senate have changed, and several colleagues spoke eloquently about the interweaving of issues of gender, ethnicity, and physical ability in the events of November 9.

I know that changes in organizational culture are challenging and take time. We must adapt to the fact that behaviour that may once have been tolerated is no longer acceptable. The “good old days” were not so good for many people. The Senate is working to reflect this evolving reality.

I remain confident that we can continue to work together to ensure that the Senate remains a place that recognizes the collective rights of senators to participate in passionate but respectful debate on issues that matter to Canadians.

As we now turn to the four criteria of rule 13-2(1), all of which must be met at this stage, the first criterion — that the question of privilege must “be raised at the earliest opportunity” — was clearly fulfilled. Senator Saint-Germain raised the matter at the next sitting after November 9.

The second criterion is that a matter must “directly concern[] the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees or any Senator.” The events of November 9 involved a disproportionate reaction to a motion to adjourn debate. Senators shouted at colleagues who were operating within the framework of the Rules. We heard from senators about the aggressive and menacing tone used toward them. There were threats to penalize them by blocking work in committee or in the chamber if they did not give way and concede to a particular outcome. Insulting and unacceptable remarks were hurled across the Senate Chamber. All these events can be understood as attempts to intimidate colleagues and to unduly constrain, or even to extract retribution against them in the performance of their duties as parliamentarians.

At pages 107-108 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice we can read the following:

In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. Assaulting, threatening, or insulting a Member during a proceeding of Parliament, or while the Member is circulating within the Parliamentary Precinct, is a violation of the rights of Parliament. Any form of intimidation of a Member with respect to the Member’s actions during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt.

As the definition of privilege in the Rules notes, “freedom of speech in the Senate and its committees … and, in general, freedom from obstruction and intimidation” are core rights necessary for us to perform our duties as members of this house.

Some argued that the fact that the senators who were the targets of the actions at issue nevertheless voted is proof that they were not intimidated. However, privilege should not be seen as something that only comes into play if there is an actual undesirable outcome. The harm does not actually have to be caused for privilege to be involved.

Senators should not have to fear for their safety or about any retribution for the simple act of moving a motion or voting. It is very possible that, if such behaviour is not stopped, a senator could soon say to themselves “Perhaps I will sit out this vote, or this debate, or this meeting; I can’t keep on being yelled at and threatened.” When people are treated in a demeaning way, it can have lasting effects in ways that may not always be anticipated by others. In brief, intimidation is intimidation when it is attempted; the intimidation does not have to be successful to be unacceptable.

Senators, in the Senate Chamber, felt threatened and insulted and intimidated. That is a violation of the rights of Parliament, of the Senate, and of individual senators. The second criterion has been met.

The third criterion requires that a question of privilege must “be raised to correct a grave and serious breach.” The points already discussed in relation to the second criterion are grave. They are serious. Senators have explained how they felt threatened and intimidated in the performance of their duties, here where we should model the best behaviour for our fellow citizens. We should be able to express deeply held divergent views in a respectful way. Even if senators did not intend to intimidate or threaten in their words or actions that day, that is how these actions were received and how they were understood by others. This situation must be corrected so that we can carry out our responsibilities in Parliament. The third criterion has been met.

According to the final criterion, a question of privilege must “be raised to seek a genuine remedy that the Senate has the power to provide and for which no other parliamentary process is reasonably available.” The events of November 9, and those that flowed from them, involve several overlapping issues. There were failures to consider the full possible effects of actions outside the Senate, including on social media. There were issues of order and decorum during the sitting. There were issues of not maintaining the highest standards of dignity. There were attempts to intimidate.

Among these multiple issues, the key point in this situation, as a question of privilege, is the actions touching on the intimidation of senators relating to the performance of their parliamentary duties. There was an extremely tight nexus of cause and effect that clearly relates to privilege. Senators, acting within the framework of the Rules, were made to feel intimidated.

This is the point that is fundamentally an issue of privilege. The right to vote and decide issues, free of intimidation and threat, is perhaps the most essential privilege afforded to senators, allowing us to collectively reach considered decisions.

While there may be other tools available on some related matters, they cannot deal with the fundamental issues of privilege involved. Only the Senate, in whose interest privilege exists, can properly address this issue, to ensure that it can continue to benefit from the unimpeded service of its members. Only senators can — individually and collectively — ensure the respect and courtesy that are essential in a parliamentary body. The final criterion has been met.

Since all four criteria have been met at this initial stage, a case of privilege has been established. I repeat that this initial review has been to determine whether, at first appearance, a reasonable person could conclude that there may have been a violation of privilege. There is then the opportunity to propose a motion to seek a remedy or to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. The matter remains, in the end, in the hands of the Senate to decide.

I will therefore soon recognize Senator Saint-Germain to move her motion relating to this case of privilege. Although the motion will be moved now, debate will only start at 8 p.m., or the end of the Orders of the Day, whichever comes first.

During the debate, the provisions of rule 13-6 govern proceedings. All senators, including the leaders and facilitators, can speak for a maximum of 15 minutes, and there is no right of final reply. The maximum duration of the debate is three hours, after which the Speaker must interrupt proceedings to put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion. On the first day of debate, the Senate will not deal with items on the Notice Paper, and in some situations there may be extensions to the time for considering the Orders of the Day. Debate can generally be adjourned, but if it is still underway at the ordinary time of adjournment on the first day, it must continue without adjournment of the motion or the Senate.

More important than these procedural technicalities, however, I urge colleagues to act with respect and dignity in the upcoming debate, and in all our work. Senators all want the best for our country. The same is true of witnesses, staff, and everyone we deal with. We may disagree strongly, but we must do so with restraint and respect. The work we do matters, but how we do it is also important. Let us consider how the Senate is evolving and where we want it to go, so that, together, we can continue to perform our essential work as a respectful house of sober second thought, which strengthens our Parliament and acts in the interest of all Canadians.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Clement:

That the case of privilege concerning events relating to the sitting of November 9, 2023, be referred to the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators for examination and report;

That, without limiting the committee’s study, it consider, in light of this case of privilege:

1.appropriate updates to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators; and

2.the obligations of senators in the performance of their duties; and

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, when the committee is dealing with the case of privilege:

1.it be authorized to meet in public if it so decides; and

2.a senator who is not a member of the committee not attend unless doing so as a witness and at the invitation of the committee.

Pursuant to rule 13-6(2), consideration of the motion shall start when the Senate has completed consideration of the Orders of the Day or no later than 8 p.m. today.

Government Business

Bills – Third Reading

Third reading of Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

The Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., that the bill be read for a third time.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator Martin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

After debate,

In amendment, the Honourable Senator Cormier moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne:

That Bill C-35 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 8, on page 6, by replacing lines 13 to 20 with the following:

“8 (1) The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples and for official language minority communities.

(2) The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments and Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.”.

Debate.

DEFERRED VOTES

At 5:30 p.m., pursuant to rule 9-10(2), the Senate proceeded to the taking of the deferred standing vote on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, to the motion of the Honourable Senator Wells, seconded by the Honourable Senator Batters, for the third reading of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

The question being put on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy:

That Bill C-234 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) in clause 1,

(i) on page 1, by replacing lines 4 to 15 with the following:

“1 (1) Paragraph (c) of the definition eligible farming machinery in section 3 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is replaced by the”,

(ii) on page 2, by deleting lines 1 to 10;

(b) in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing line 22 with the following:

“2 (1) Subsections 1(2.1) and (5) come”.

The motion in amendment was adopted on the following vote:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

AucoinAudetteBellemareBoehmCardozoClementCordyCormierCoyleCuznerDalphondDaskoDeanDupuisForestGerbaGoldHarderHartlingKingstonKutcherLaBoucane-BensonLankinLoffredaMacAdamMassicotteMcNairMégieMiville-DechêneMoncionMoodieOmidvarPatePetitclercPettenRinguetteSaint-GermainSimonsWhiteYussuff—40

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

ArnotAtaullahjanBattersBoyerBussonCarignanCotterDagenaisDeacon (Nova Scotia)Deacon (Ontario)DowneDuncanFrancisGignacGreeneHousakosKlyneMarshallMartinMcCallumMcPhedranMocklerOhOslerPatterson (Nunavut)Patterson (Ontario)PlettPoirierProsperQuinnRichardsRossSeidmanSmithSorensenTannasVernerWallinWells—39

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

Nil

WRITTEN DECLARATION OF ROYAL ASSENT

At 5:38 p.m., the Honourable the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

December 5, 2023

Madam Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 5^th day of December, 2023, at 5:11 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Schedule

Bill Assented To

Tuesday, December 5, 2023

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform) (Bill C-48, Chapter 30, 2023)

Government Business

Bills – Third Reading

The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Cormier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne:

That Bill C-35 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 8, on page 6, by replacing lines 13 to 20 with the following:

“8 (1) The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples and for official language minority communities.

(2) The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments and Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.”.

Debate.

---

Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), the Speaker left the Chair to resume the same at 8 p.m.

The sitting resumed.

Other Business

Motions

The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain, seconded by the Honourable Senator Clement:

That the case of privilege concerning events relating to the sitting of November 9, 2023, be referred to the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators for examination and report;

That, without limiting the committee’s study, it consider, in light of this case of privilege:

1.appropriate updates to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators; and

2.the obligations of senators in the performance of their duties; and

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, when the committee is dealing with the case of privilege:

1.it be authorized to meet in public if it so decides; and

2.a senator who is not a member of the committee not attend unless doing so as a witness and at the invitation of the committee.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator Wells moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Government Business

Bills – Third Reading

The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Cormier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne:

That Bill C-35 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 8, on page 6, by replacing lines 13 to 20 with the following:

“8 (1) The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples and for official language minority communities.

(2) The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments and Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.”.

After debate,

The question was put on the motion in amendment.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on September 21, 2022, the standing vote was deferred until 4:15 p.m. at the next sitting, with the bells to sound at 4 p.m. for fifteen minutes.

Bills – Second Reading

Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Reports of Committees – Other

Orders No. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Motions

Orders No. 1, 131, 132 and 143 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Inquiries

Orders No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Other Business

Ordered, That Order No. 14 under OTHER BUSINESS, Inquiries, be brought forward.

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Duncan, calling the attention of the Senate to the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the Yukon Act, an Act of Parliament adopted on June 13, 1898.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator Clement moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Senate Public Bills – Third Reading

Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.

Commons Public Bills – Third Reading

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wells, seconded by the Honourable Senator Batters, for the third reading of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, as amended.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator Cordy moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Senate Public Bills – Reports of Committees

Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.

Senate Public Bills – Second Reading

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McPhedran, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, for the second reading of Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age).

Ordered: That further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting, in the name of the Honourable Senator Martin.

o o o

Orders No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

o o o

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut), seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

Ordered: That further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting, in the name of the Honourable Senator Housakos.

o o o

Orders No. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

o o o

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Klyne, for the second reading of Bill S-275, An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act (mandate, monetary policy governance and accountability).

The Honourable Senator Martin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

Orders No. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Commons Public Bills – Second Reading

Orders No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Reports of Committees – Other

Orders No. 31, 33 and 40 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

o o o

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean:

That the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled Doing What Works: Rethinking the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-23(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Health.

The Honourable Senator Martin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

Orders No. 51 and 53 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

o o o

Consideration of the seventh report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, entitled The Time is Now: Granting equitable access to psychedelic-assisted therapies, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on November 8, 2023.

The Honourable Senator Richards moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Downe:

That the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, entitled The Time is Now: Granting equitable access to psychedelic-assisted therapies, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on November 8, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-23(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Veterans Affairs being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Health.

The Honourable Senator Martin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

Consideration of the twentieth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Budget—special expenses budget), presented in the Senate on November 30, 2023.

The Honourable Senator Cotter moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, that the report be adopted.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Motions

Orders No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

o o o

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the cumulative positive and negative impacts of resource extraction and development, and their effects on environmental, economic and social considerations, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

Ordered: That further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting, in the name of the Honourable Senator Wells.

o o o

Orders No. 19, 30, 68, 77, 82, 96, 107, 113 and 147 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Inquiries

Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.

o o o

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Debate concluded.

o o o

Orders No. 3, 4 and 5 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

o o o

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Plett, calling the attention of the Senate to the impact on Canada’s public finances of the NDP-Liberal agreement entitled Delivering for Canadians Now, A Supply and Confidence Agreement.

Ordered: That further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting, in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett.

o o o

Orders No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

ADJOURNMENT

At 11:15 p.m., pursuant to Rule 13-6(10), the Senate adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow.

DOCUMENTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 14-1(7)

Service Fees Report of the Privy Council Office from 2022 to 2023, pursuant to the Service Fees Act, S.C. 2017, c. 20, s. 451 “20(1)”.—Sessional Paper No. 1/44-2452.

Service Fees Reports of the Office of the Governor General’s Secretary from 2022 to 2023, pursuant to the Service Fees Act, S.C. 2017, c. 20, s. 451 “20(1)”.—Sessional Paper No. 1/44-2453.

Agreement for RCMP policing services (First Nations Community Policing Service) for the province of Saskatchewan, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sbs. 20(5).—Sessional Paper No. 1/44-2454.

Report on the administration and enforcement of the Energy Efficiency Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, pursuant to the Act, S.C. 1992, c. 36, s. 36.—Sessional Paper No. 1/44-2455.

Order Issuing Directives to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (P.C. 2023-1125), pursuant to the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, s. 7(5).—Sessional Paper No. 1/44-2456.

Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 12-5

Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

The Honourable Senator Osler replaced the Honourable Senator Burey (December 5, 2023).

The Honourable Senator Pate was removed from the membership of the committee, substitution pending (December 1, 2023).

Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy

The Honourable Senator Coyle replaced the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne (December 5, 2023).

The Honourable Senator Bellemare replaced the Honourable Senator Cardozo (November 30, 2023).

Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

The Honourable Senator Boniface replaced the Honourable Senator Greenwood (December 1, 2023).

Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights

The Honourable Senator Arnot replaced the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne (December 5, 2023).

The Honourable Senator Hartling replaced the Honourable Senator Pate (December 5, 2023).

The Honourable Senator Simons replaced the Honourable Senator Jaffer (December 1, 2023).

The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne replaced the Honourable Senator Arnot (December 1, 2023).

The Honourable Senator Pate replaced the Honourable Senator Hartling (December 1, 2023).

Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

The Honourable Senator Busson replaced the Honourable Senator Jaffer (December 5, 2023).

Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs

The Honourable Senator Boisvenu replaced the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C. (December 5, 2023).

Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament

The Honourable Senator Woo replaced the Honourable Senator Deacon (Ontario) (December 5, 2023).

The Honourable Senator Deacon (Ontario) replaced the Honourable Senator Woo (December 4, 2023).

Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology

The Honourable Senator Jaffer replaced the Honourable Senator Cormier (December 5, 2023).

The Honourable Senator Dagenais replaced the Honourable Senator Burey (December 5, 2023).

The Honourable Senator Bernard replaced the Honourable Senator Bellemare (November 30, 2023).