Some Hon. Senators: No.

Senator Plett: For you, Senator Bovey, always.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: I wonder if Senator Plett would take another question.

Hon. Sandra Lovelace Nicholas: Would the senator take another question?

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

And two honourable senators having risen:

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, senator. I probably find myself in the same situation as you do. I’m not entirely sure how I envision that. That is, of course, why I started by asking Senator McCallum some questions.

What I did refer to is the old iteration of the Senate, when we had the two caucuses, and we did have independent or non-affiliated senators. At that time, generally they were taken in by the Leader of the Government. So I was just simply suggesting that maybe they could as well, because I believe that Senator Gagné or somebody from the government attends scroll.

As to how many unaffiliated senators there are now, I don’t know whether there are more or less than what there usually were, but, at that point, they certainly didn’t get the same number of questions as the opposition did. We’re talking about more things than Question Period, but, in the old days, during Question Period, it was basically the opposition asking questions. Every so often, somebody on the government side asked a question, but that was it.

So how do I envision this? I’m not sure. My suggestion is simply that Senator McCallum raised some good points and they need to be addressed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Do we have leave, honourable senators, so that Senator Bellemare will answer the question?

Senator Bellemare: Yes.

[English]

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

Senator Gold: Senator Plett, thank you for your follow-up, but I don’t know that I need lessons about talking points — or talking points that come from other places.

The government condemns the statements and the sentiments behind the statements. They’re deeply hurtful to all of us in the Jewish community and, indeed, to all Canadians who care about the proper, just and respectful treatment of all Canadians, regardless of their religion, race, culture or background. The government stands by its condemnation of these and also acknowledges — as I did yesterday and again now — that there were errors made in the vetting of this particular project and its proponent.

Senator Tannas: I agree with you, Senator Gold: The process that this government has undertaken is unprecedented and has created extra value with the candidates who have come.

I hope you’re not saying that it’s satisfactory in any way, or that somehow a province is at fault, it’s out of the government’s control or that it’s okay for a seat to sit vacant for 1,000 days or, in my case, two years.

Senator Saint-Germain: Senator, I would like to begin by thanking and congratulating you and Senator Verner on your initiative, which I believe is worthwhile.

In her speech, Senator Verner talked about an “extraordinary process” that has never been attempted in the history of the Senate, which is true. However, because this is true, and notwithstanding the nobility of the cause and the strong desire that I myself may have to see this course of action against our former colleague happen quickly, I nevertheless believe that there is no reason to shut out senators who wish to contribute to the debate on this issue this evening and who would perhaps like to ensure the constitutionality of the motion being moved.

I don’t see any reason to deny them this opportunity, so why the rush to call for the vote immediately?

Senator Saint-Germain: Once again, I’m not saying I’m opposed to the objective, but, given senators’ right to express their opinion on such an important issue and given our responsibility to ensure that the motion is constitutional, I move adjournment of the debate in my name.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Verner and I have had that discussion. As you know, this was Senator Verner’s initiative, but of course I immediately agreed to second it. This is a difficult debate. It’s a debate that we don’t want to prolong, given the nature of the facts that have tarnished all of our reputations. The idea was to keep debate short and avoid adjourning debate so that there is no break. This has been dragging on and hurting us for a long time. The idea of having a short debate where we all agree is obviously an idea that I support.

However, I understand what you’re saying. I have a feeling, given that this story has been affecting us for a long time, that the senators have made up their minds. After all, is it so hard to agree that Senator Meredith does not deserve the title “Honourable?” It makes complete sense. The two reports that I have reread are devastating, and they were produced by our Senate Ethics Officer as a result of our internal mechanisms, so I feel that the issue is relatively simple.

I consulted people before drafting this text to make sure it avoided any potential legal pitfalls. Are there constitutional issues? I’m sure Senator Verner had this motion drafted by a trained law clerk. I am no legal expert, but on the face of it I see no constitutional problem. That’s my point of view.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: I don’t wish to take any more points. I believe the point of my question was made, and it was more about the mechanics of Senator Plett’s proposal and exactly how it would work, given our true and tried principle of proportionality on the one hand, the fact that the Government Representative Office, or GRO, does not have an assigned number of seats on committees, nor do they have numbers of statements.

I’m wondering if you could explain your vision for all the non-affiliated senators being embraced by GRO as members of their caucus. I’m not quite sure how I would see that working.

The Hon. the Speaker: The sitting is suspended until 8 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

(2000)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator McPhedran, calling the attention of the Senate to parliamentary privilege, the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators and options for increasing accountability, transparency and fairness in the context of the Senate’s unique self-governance, including guidelines on public disclosure.

Senator Bovey: I’m not sure I like the word “end goal.” Surely, we should be looking at the word “future goal.” I wasn’t in the “good old Senate” — I know that. I never had any aspirations of being in the new Senate. Surprises happen in one’s life.

However, it must have been the case — and I hope you agree with me on this, Senator Plett — that not all the workings of the old Senate were necessarily “good old.” What I’m trying to get us to — and I hope you can agree with me and I asked you about this — is to agree to look for the future goal as opposed to the end goal. And as we do so, can we think about the needs of the ever-changing society and communities that we represent?

I would be interested if you do that, too, in our changing Manitoba. Remember, Manitoba was the “keystone” province, Senator Plett, so I come from the basis of that. Can we look at how the history of even our province changed the scope of Canadian Confederation and has changed the dynamics of this country that we call Canada?

Shouldn’t we be looking at how we can make this place a better place? As a chamber of sober second thought, don’t you agree with me that we have a responsibility to look at what that sober second thought is in terms of future goals?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Senator Plett: Certainly.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: As you know, she’s already a minority, and we represent minorities here. Now she’s trying to protect and prevent herself from being a minority on top of a minority.

I’m sorry; I agree with you and I agree with Senator McCallum. We should not do this. She is a minority on a minority, and she is a woman — a Native woman.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course.