Hon. Scott Tannas, pursuant to notice of December 14, 2021, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.except as provided in this order, the question not be put on the motion for third reading of a government bill unless the orders for resuming debate at second and third reading have, together, been called at least three times, in addition to the sittings at which the motions for second and third readings were moved;

2.when a government bill has been read a first time, and before a motion is moved to set the date for second reading, the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate may, without notice, move that the bill be deemed an urgent matter, and that the provisions of paragraph 1 of this order not apply to proceedings on the bill;

3.when a motion has been moved pursuant to paragraph 2 of this order, the following provisions apply:

(a)the debate shall only deal with whether the bill should be deemed an urgent matter or not;

(b)the debate shall not be adjourned;

(c)the debate shall last a maximum of 20 minutes;

(d)no senator shall speak for more than 5 minutes;

(e)no senators shall speak more than once;

(f)the debate shall not be interrupted for any purpose, except for the reading of a message from the Crown or an event announced in such a message;

(g)the debate may continue beyond the ordinary time of adjournment, if necessary, until the conclusion of the debate and consequential business;

(h)the time taken in debate and for any vote shall not count as part of Routine Proceedings;

(i)no amendment or other motion shall be received, except a motion that a certain senator be now heard or do now speak;

(j)when debate concludes or the time for debate expires, the Speaker shall put the question; and

(k)any standing vote requested shall not be deferred, and the bells shall ring for only 15 minutes.

He said: Honourable senators, you will recall my speech and the subsequent discussion we had during the final days of our December sittings when we reluctantly waived our rights and obligations to thoroughly consider legislation that, in some cases, had only just arrived in our chamber hours before the scheduled adjournment for the holidays.

In fact, there were a number of bills that were passed in December by us through a process that involved us waiving some or all of our Rules regarding our processes long established for sober second thought.

Some of the bills were urgent. They were financially urgent. They were needed by Canadians. They were in response to the COVID crisis. Frankly, some of the bills were politically urgent and with less clear rationale for such swift passage without consideration in accordance with our Rules. We passed them all.

Many of us on that final day expressed regret and frustration at being forced, influenced and encouraged to compromise our duty to sober second thought. There was a consensus over the course of that discussion to examine this issue and to take action to prevent us from falling into the same situation again.

I think when you look to solve a problem, you have to make sure you understand what the problem is, and so let me pause with what I think the problem is. I think there are two things we should focus on.

First, the House of Commons does not appear to accept that the Senate needs time to fulfill its constitutional duty to apply sober second thought to legislation. I think that’s clear by their actions, particularly last December and last June. I would say those were exceptional situations, but I have been here for nine years. It seems that this has happened over and over again, but none more obvious than last December. I would say that’s problem number one.

Problem number two, I think, is that over many years and many governments of different political stripes, the Senate has enabled and reinforced the government’s expectation that the Senate will waive its rules and/or truncate its processes when receiving bills in the final days of the session. We have, through our own actions, shown that we will be a willing partner in throwing over what our job is in the final days of the session.

With those two problems on the table, how do we consider solutions, and what are they? We have had discussions about this before. We have good rules. We choose to waive them. So the first and foremost suggested solution to this problem involves a change of behaviour by us. We have to stop granting leave all over the place; leave to break our own rules on legislation, particularly. That is an easy first step.

In aid of that, I’m pleased to announce that after discussions, the CSG senators will not grant leave to facilitate or waive our rules on the passage of any legislation anymore. That’s not going to be there. We can rely on our rules. We can debate changing our rules. We can hear explanations about changing our rules. But in situations where we are asked to grant unanimous consent, we will not provide it. I hope all senators from all corners will consider adding their negative voices if and when we are asked in the future.

I think we also need to be a bit more critical of emergencies. There was a statement I made once before, something to the effect that your bad planning is not my emergency. Bad planning is not an emergency. Political expediency is not an emergency. Even if we want to see the legislation passed, if we support it with our hearts, we still should do the job we are here to do. In business, no matter how good the deal or how important, there is an issue of due diligence that must be undertaken, and we need to do our job in providing due diligence.

Those are a couple of ideas around behaviour change that we need to consider and look to ourselves on as we look to solve this problem. I think we have to have better communication and more candid communication. Committees need to, I think, get in front of bills, understand and communicate what they see as a work plan, maybe earlier in the process. It’s something to consider, to communicate with the government leader and the chamber how much time they believe they will need if they are assigned the job of reviewing legislation.

I think we have some communications efforts to educate members of Parliament and the public as to what work we actually do on a bill and why it takes as long as it does. I think we should also show that, in most cases, we deal with a bill faster than the House of Commons does, even when we are applying our normal rules and discipline, so that we get the real facts out about the job we do, how long it takes in comparison to the other place and make sure that everybody understands the value of that. I think we still have lots of work to do in that area.

The third action I think we need to take is to make some adjustment to our rules. I think we have to make an adjustment that recognizes that there are going to be emergencies when we will need to move faster than our current rules allow. If anything has highlighted that, it is COVID-19. But we should have some clear rules around how we are going to do that. If we do, I think that will allow better transparency, it will allow debate and it will make it clear that we have considered, thoughtfully, on purpose and in a public way, and waived our rights and obligations to full sober second thought.

That is what Motion No. 30 attempts to capture. There is a process by which we would have a procedure within our own rules to deal with genuine emergencies in a transparent and orderly way, through a brief debate, triggered by the government leader, and then a standing vote. In that way, we can publicly and thoughtfully decide whether or not — whatever the bill is — it is an emergency worth having us suspend our rights and obligations under the Constitution. Maybe all three of these things — a change in our behaviour, better communication and changes to our rules — will allow us to avoid the Christmas crunch and the June jam-up that we have suffered so many times.

I know others have ideas on how to deal with this; others may say there is nothing we can do. But we look forward to debate and discussion on this motion. There is no pride of authorship. We are wide open to amendments, additions, deletions — whatever senators want. I undertook, on behalf of a number of people who asked, to put something forward, and after consideration I think Motion No. 30 is helpful. It is one of the things that needs to be done and I look forward to continued discussion. Thank you, senators.