Senator Saint-Germain: Gladly.

Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question. I understand that it is about the importance of organizing our work at committees and possibly in the chamber in a way that would keep us from having to push through our work quickly — sometimes even too quickly — at the end of break weeks, during the summer or during the holiday season. I think it is a good example of rules and work organization strategies that could be studied by the Rules Committee or the Selection Committee. The goal would be to organize our business more efficiently while taking into account the constraints of our work, including interpretation and the presence of a fourth group of senators. I agree with you. It depends on us, and it is up to us to see to it. Thank you.

[English]

Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Housakos, I won’t admit anything, but I will concur with you that the onus is on us to organize our work first during these three sitting days. There is more efficiency to gain there; I am sure of it. If and when so needed, it is what we do and what we have done during the intensive sessions, when we need to be there for more than three days, be it four days or five days, or when there are emergencies as well. So, yes, the onus is on us to better organize ourselves.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for the question. There is a trap in it, so I will first address the question and then the trap.

As for the question, I do agree that Motion No. 30 does not fix the problem it pretends or wants to fix. On the contrary, I believe this motion is counterproductive, because it will provide some delays that are not relevant regarding an emergency bill or a bill the government pretends is an emergency bill.

As for the trap, I would agree with you that if we use the Rules wisely, as they are written wisely, from a sober-second-thought perspective, I would say that the majority are very well thought out and do not need to be amended. However, I still believe that, given the contemporary Senate, some rules have to be updated in order to provide more fairness for all senators and all groups, and also — and I intend to be polite — to “undust” some practices that are time-consuming and that don’t have any impact on our efficiency — on the contrary.

That’s my answer.

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I rise today to join the debate on what I consider to be a crucial discussion regarding the ability of the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of sober second thought. I want to thank Senator Tannas for putting forward this discussion. I do so as an independent senator and not as ISG facilitator. This is a disclaimer — a preemptive move. I want to share my view on this issue, knowing very well that some of my ISG colleagues will agree and some will disagree. This plurality of opinion and expertise paired with mutual respect is, I believe, one of the strengths of our group.

Allow me first to speak to the context surrounding this motion and on the existing tools we currently have at our disposal. I will also share my thoughts more precisely on the content of the motion that aims to solve the problem that we often face nearing the end of a session or before rising for the winter and summer recess: the rush and the inability to properly study and improve bills coming late to the Senate. I believe we can all agree that the Senate is the master of its own destiny. We should not accept or fold in the face of pressure from the government or the House of Commons that would prevent us from fulfilling our role as senators. On this, I concur with Senator Tannas. However, I believe we have now, within our rules, the power and the ability to provide our sober second thought while working in a complementary way with the elected House as the Canadian public expects us to do.

Let me continue by citing some of the tools that we have at our disposal. We have the ability to do pre-studies on bills that we know will arrive late for our consideration in accordance with rule 10-11(1). This practice is beneficial because it allows us to be ready for debate and, eventually, amendments when the bills arrive in circumstances requiring a diligent and timely response.

We also have, in exceptional circumstances, a simple, yet effective, option: sitting for a longer amount of time. When it comes down to it, the onus to properly study a bill is on us. Notably, there are no rules that say we must adjourn three days after the other place. So then why not sit for one week, two weeks or any amount of time that is needed to complete the work Canadians expect us to do? Bills do not arrive in the Senate with an expiry date, after all. I know some of my colleagues will argue that sitting longer would not solve the issue and that we could not amend bills while the House is adjourned. But I see it differently. Let’s remember that the Senate is the master of its own destiny. There is nothing preventing us from amending these late-arriving bills and sending them back to the other place.

Actually, I agree generally with the notion that the bad planning of the House is not the Senate’s emergency, as stated by the leader of the Canadian Senators Group. However, it is up to senators to express the collective and individual will to sit on days when they do not wish to and stay later than what is indicated on proposed sitting calendars in order to achieve the goal of having thorough examinations of pieces of government legislation.

I want to address the questions surrounding the notion of sending a Senate amendment on a piece of government legislation back to an adjourned House of Commons. Doing this is not simply an ISG problem, a CPC problem or a CSG or PSG problem. It is, in fact, not a Senate problem at all. This is a government-of-the-day problem. This is a House of Commons problem. It is their problem to address it if the situation arises.

We shall keep in mind that the Speaker of the House of Commons has the authority to recall MPs during those break periods in accordance with rule 28(3) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. As for us, we would only be fulfilling our constitutional duty, and frankly, colleagues, I do not believe we shall then have to apologize for doing our collective job in keeping the government to account.

Consequently, I also wish to address Senator Tannas’s statement made in his speech of February 8 that “. . . CSG senators will not grant leave to facilitate or waive our rules on the passage of any legislation anymore.”

While I agree that waiving leave of the Senate is an important tool at our disposal and that the practice of granting leave has been vastly used — maybe overused — in this pandemic period, I strongly disagree with this Pavlovian response to deny leave. It doesn’t mean that because of some past abuses there is no merit in granting leave to some urgent issue that would, if legislation is adopted swiftly, greatly benefit Canadians. For example, would any colleague who cares for public interest really be comfortable denying leave of an urgent supply bill, even in a case where that bill had been thoroughly studied by our own expert senators at the National Finance Committee? I don’t believe so.

Allow me to use the example of Bill C-10, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020. It was passed in one day in the Forty-third Parliament on March 13, 2020, at the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We passed Bill C-10 with leave of the Senate to provide important benefits to Canadian citizens and enterprises for the difficult times ahead.

It was necessary at the time to meet the needs of Canadians and it may still be necessary in the future. While in the worst peaks of this pandemic, we had the duty to act timely in the best public interest. This is not a nuance, colleagues. It is the realpolitik we were then in. Hopefully, the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is behind us, but we are not immune to tragedies or natural disasters that would require urgent action and approval.

To further highlight the negative effects of this dogmatic approach — and even ill-conceived sophistry — I would like to refer to the debate we had recently on the Emergencies Act. The choice of some of our colleagues to deny leave on a request to waive the usual one-day notice and expedite the debate, while totally valid within our rules, ended up slowing down our work and ensuring that many senators — 16 for the ISG alone — were, in the end, not able to rise and speak to this vital issue. Had this permission been granted, we could have debated on the Friday and on the following Monday.

And what about Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code to ban the practice of conversion therapy? It was tabled in late June 2021 in the Senate, but we were not able to pass that bill because leave was then denied for us to do a pre-study. That bill had close to unanimous support in the chamber and was urgently requested by independent experts and the LGBTQ2+ community. Furthermore, it was adopted with leave of the Senate in this new legislature. So, then, why needlessly block its pre-study last summer?

I must say, I think those examples prove the counterproductive nature of this practice and are not in line with the ideal of legislating in the best public interest.

It is, furthermore, proof that Motion No. 30 is superfluous. Since the opening of this Forty-fourth Parliament, Senator Tannas himself has used our rules almost systematically to deny leave, thus preventing the Senate from being rushed by the government or the other place.

I do not agree with the terms of the debate as expressed in the third point of the motion. Limiting debate time to 20 minutes with 5 minutes to each senator would mean that only four could speak up during debates. I feel it would be greatly unjust, letting aside the superficiality of this approach.

Between the recognized groups, the Conservative caucus, the non-affiliated senators and the government representatives, somebody is assured to go unrepresented.

For my own group, the ISG, the option would not be viable. Even in the case where one of our members should rise and speak to the urgency of a bill, it would be impossible for the senator to do so as a spokesperson or representative for the group. Other ISG senators could disagree and feel unrepresented in the debate.

I am sure many of my colleagues from other groups will feel the same way. This approach is simply not aligned with the realities of the contemporary Senate.

However, I must salute Senator Tannas on his openness to suggestions and improvements, which demonstrates his long‑standing and unwavering dedication to the efficiency of the Senate.

Colleagues, the motion before us today is a political statement. It is a demonstration of bravado in response to frustration from the perceived dismissiveness of the other place, which I share. However, it is not necessary nor substantiated if we take a closer look at the rules and if we have the collective courage to apply them properly in combination with a good plan for our parliamentary work.

Moreover, it is only a temporary solution, considering it would only be a sessional order and would not amend any of our Rules. It is so unsubstantiated that, for instance, the Government Representative in the Senate has not, either in the last Parliament or in this new one, used the pressure tool that is time allocation. Instead, he has sought to build consensus among senators. We must keep working in this collegial way.

I will now conclude, hoping that Senator Tannas will still be my friend, with the wise words of a former senator, the late Michael Pitfield, taken from the foreword of the book Protecting Canadian Democracy: The Senate You Never Knew:

Longstanding experience in public administration has taught me to approach anything as challenging as Senate reform with prudence and a reserve of humility. . . .

Those wise words shall inspire us to take our distance from group branding and political bravado. Rather than safeguarding the Senate’s sober second thought, this motion would lead us to the denial of the various options we are already provided with by our Rules and by the rules of the other place. Actually, it would simply delay our parliamentary works, both in the chamber and in committees, at the detriment of the timeliness required in times of need.

That is why I will not support this motion.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question. You referred, as I also did in my speech, to courage. But courage is linked to remembering, each and every day, why we are here. We are here to give sober second thought to the government bills, to the elected chamber’s analysis of those bills, first and foremost, and to make sure that Aboriginal peoples, vulnerable peoples, regions and people who have no other voice than ours are duly represented. The courage is taking the needed time to do so but not to interpret and use the rules for other objectives.

We are also responsible for our own organization. If we interpret and use the rules in a way that is not aligned with sober second thought, we are accountable to Canadians for that.

Personally, I just don’t like having to rush at the end of a session but, at the same time, what if we never took the time to amend, when so needed, the bills that we really believe need to be amended at the end of a session? Do we then have the courage to send back those bills, to send back a message with amendments to the other place? I do believe this is part of the problem because then the onus will be on us for not having done our job in a timely manner.

But the first condition, I do believe, or the first goal that we should have, is to better organize our work. Frankly, there is a need there, and I think that belief is pretty unanimous.

To that end, I commend the Rules Committee for the work and the dynamism they are having now. I know that the Selection Committee, if and when it has to act, will be acting as well.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, senator. You see the problem that I see. Even from Quebec City, it takes me six hours to come here, but we disagree on the solution.

I do believe we could organize our time in order to sit during the usual three-day week that we have planned but to reorganize our schedule and rethink this. At the same time, I also believe that if we have the courage to send a message with amendments to the other place and that means that the Speaker of the House will have to call back the other place, then they may also want to reorganize their work.

Senator Saint-Germain: On the first part of your question with regard to the notice that requires one or two days hence, I think as a chamber we can decide that the emergency exists and waive it. Then we agree that it won’t be one day hence, but will be now.

I will now go to your third question, because there is a link. If only one senator refuses to grant leave, the senator has the onus to demonstrate why it is this way. When denial of leave is only for one or two days and there is no emergency, we can cope with that.

When you refer to back-to-work legislation, generally we know that the situations have evolved, the negotiations with the unions have not been conclusive and that we will need to study the bill in a kind of emergency situation, but that does not mean that we won’t vote on a bill in a timely manner, given we have enough time to organize our work and study this back-to-work legislation. It doesn’t come with a time allocation. Each time we did this — and I remember it has been the case three times since 2016 — we took the time needed to study these bills.

To return to your first question, the issue of one senator being able to deny leave comes with the responsibility of the senator to have a very good reason in doing so. I trust all my colleagues to be responsible to that end. Frankly, when we look at the best public interest, it is normally something that we have to do only exceptionally.

If we see some abuse of this, let’s refer it to our Rules Committee to try to find a different way to address this issue. Thank you.

Senator Saint-Germain: Senator, I agree that estimates and supply bills are complex bills. This year, especially, those two bills came late, but there is a benefit to the pre-studies that were made, as you know, by the members of the National Finance Committee.

A senator cannot be in a position to study, clause by clause, each and every bill. This is the role and the duty of the Senate committees, to go thoroughly through the bills and then to report to us and make their recommendations of amending or not.

As for supply bills, there is an important tradition to rely or to defer to the other place and to the government. As you know, on a finance bill, a supply bill, a government can be defeated, so there is a nuance there that is important.

In a nutshell, the Senate committees need time to do their work, but we must also consider that the membership of those committees are experts. They must advise us and, if so needed, recommend to us amendments that we need to carefully study as a chamber.

Senator Saint-Germain: I think that the Rules Committee and the Selection Committee could have a look at it, and at the same time the site of MétéoMédia for us to benefit from the best times in the summer as well.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia), seconded by the Honourable Senator Kutcher:

That the Senate adopt the following Environmental and Sustainability Policy Statement, to replace the 1993 Senate Environmental Policy, adopted by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration:

The Senate of Canada is committed to reducing the Senate’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030 and to implement sustainable practices in its operations. Achieving this goal requires a whole-of-organization approach which prioritizes reduction of outputs and utilizes standard-leading emission offsets. The road to net zero will include quantifiable regular reporting on progress towards target. These actions are to demonstrate leadership as an institution on climate action, to encourage accountability of federal institutions and to inform the legislative process.

The Senate is committed to achieving its objective through adherence to the following principles:

That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration examine the feasibility of implementing programs to establish:

(a)an accountability framework and annual reporting cycle;

(b)the promotion of climate-friendly transportation policies and reduced travel;

(c)enhanced recycling and minimizing waste;

(d)a digital-first approach and reduction in printing;

(e)support from central agencies to allow the Senate to charge carbon offsets as part of operating a sustainable Senate; and

(f)a process for senators and their offices to propose environmental and sustainability recommendations; and

That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration acquire any necessary goods and services to examine the feasibility or to implement these recommendations.