Senator Tannas: Thank you. I agree. It’s time. We need to commit to ourselves, and maybe that’s the Christmas feeling we get out of this — that we commit to ourselves that when we do not have our backs to the wall, we will soberly and carefully come up with a proposal for that kind of statement and that kind of interaction with the House of Commons, such that we really do break this incredible cycle we’re in; being forced to surrender our job for time.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Would Senator Tannas take a question?

Senator Tannas: Indeed.

Senator Tannas: I will.

Senator Tannas: I must be running out of time, but yes, I will.

[Translation]

Senator Tannas: You had two questions, but I just got one out of that.

[Translation]

Senator Tannas: Yes.

[Translation]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Tannas take another question?

[English]

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Senator Bellemare: Would Senator Tannas take another question?

Senator Tannas: I agree. I think it is incumbent upon all of us, on all sides of the chamber, to have on our Senate hat of sober second thought when we are confronted with these kinds of situations. That could easily, as it did, come in a motion from the Leader of the Opposition.

You’re right; we missed an opportunity. It’s not the fault of the Leader of the Opposition. He put forward the motion for good reasons and because he thought it was the right thing to do. It was our job — mine, other leaders and, indeed, every senator’s — to have jumped up and asked for further clarification or whatever needed to be done. We did not do that, and so we passed a bill that perhaps we should have spent more time on, or maybe not. Your point is well taken, Senator Dalphond. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Scott Tannas: Thank you, Your Honour. I have listened to the questions and the discussion. Everything that I wanted to say has been said, so in the interests of time, I will pass. Thank you.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for a very inspiring speech.

I was looking at the pre-study that was done by our Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. There was a concern raised with respect to a lack of clarity around what’s known as the “stacking” of rights. Essentially, through your good work and that of the union movement, as well as the good employee relations of many, many organizations within the federal regulation — I’m thinking of banks and other large institutions that come under federal oversight — sick leave benefits exist within much of the federally regulated workforce.

The question that was asked, and the lack of clarity that was pointed out by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, was whether or not this legislation was intended to be on top of existing benefits that employees have or whether this is a minimum that all employees should have. Can you provide clarity on that? There was a recommendation that some clarity be put into the bill, but I don’t think it made it into the bill. Could you comment? Maybe it did and I missed it. We’re moving quickly here. Could you comment on this, please, and give us some clarity?

Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Senator Tannas, for your question.

You are right, this issue was raised with the witnesses who came before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology; both by my former colleagues and friends that I was working with at Federally Regulated Employers — Transportation and Communications and other witnesses.

I think the minister did circulate a letter saying they are going to have to address this in the regulations. More importantly, the 10 days is for workers working in the federal jurisdiction, and I think it is important that the government clarify this in the regulation. I think it’s contained in this letter.

[Translation]

Senator Tannas: I’m not sure, but I think it’s a question we could consider. It is important, and we did send a message some time ago — on Senator Plett’s initiative, as Leader of the Opposition — that “no minister, no bill,” was the saying. We wanted the minister to appear at committee; the committee we delegate to do some of the heavy lifting research that needs to be done on a bill.

Senator Plett and the opposition said the minister needs to appear at committee. If he doesn’t, the bill doesn’t come back to the chamber. I think that laid down a nice precedent for ministers to attend committee.

We should consider whether ministers should attend committee or whether we should simply rely on Senator Gold — or future government leaders in the Senate, in their capacity as officers of the government — to provide whatever necessary assurances or statements of clarity that we need. However, I couldn’t say definitively right now whether that is something we should do.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Tannas, will you take another question?

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Yussuff for his tremendous work on this bill.

Yesterday, our group came under some significant pressure not to refuse leave, such that we would have allowed the bill to be passed last night. I won’t say there was intimidation, but there was pressure, and a lot of it. In fact, when we refused leave that was requested by Senator Gold, I heard a senator shout, “Shame.”

I would like to, for the sake of some of the new senators, and also to remind those of us who have been here longer, what should be happening now at second reading of this bill.

We should have a speech from the government sponsor; we have had that. We should have a speech from the critic; we don’t have that. We should have speeches from others, and we are, in fact, having that. We should, as senators, be sitting and listening and thinking about the intention of this bill, and considering whether or not it is worthy for further consideration. That’s what a second reading vote, which we will shortly have, is about. It is a vote to ratify if the bill is worthy of further consideration. Typically, then, once we have that vote, and if it passes, we would refer it to committee for study.

In this case, we had a pre-study done by the committee. But even in matters of pre-study, we would refer it back to the committee for clause-by-clause consideration. They would also examine the bill in its final form and see if there had been changes from the pre-study, and see if their concerns that had been outlined and enumerated in pre-study — which is one of the reasons why, sometimes, pre-study gets done — were dealt with by the government and amendments put forward in the House of Commons.

In this particular case, there were changes made. There were concerns raised by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that were largely ignored. There is a whole new section in the bill dealing with bereavement leave. In Senator Yussuff’s speech, I noticed that it was the last thing he talked about because it was a last-minute addition that was done in the House of Commons for wonderfully good reasons. Nonetheless, the details of this amendment and this whole new section were hot off the press last night.

I would expect that normally the committee that completed the pre-study would have some work that they would do in order to bring us clause-by-clause consideration, potential amendments and a final report before third reading. That’s how it should work. If that worked, then at that point we would have a bill with potentially some Senate amendments, or at least we would have a report that said all our concerns were dealt with, or not; this is still a concern, and this is still a concern. We could then say that the important quality control component of what we do was finished. That part of our sober second thought was done, and we could now move on to a fully informed debate in third reading of the merits of the bill as it was before us. None of this will happen. Why?

We have heard in some quarters that the bill is so urgent that we just simply can’t wait. Senator McPhedran raised the fact that a number of these issues have been around since before COVID, and they were certainly highlighted during COVID, but we are two years into it. I think it is debatable, at least, just how urgent this bill is and that it get passed with us waving it through.

We also heard, even though there were last-minute amendments and a lot of drama in the House of Commons, that we can’t put through any amendments to improve the bill in any way because the House of Commons has gone home, so there is no point in putting amendments forward. That speaks volumes about a number of things that I won’t even bother to get into right now.

The final one that always signals that there are problems with the bill is the famous letter from the minister that things will get fixed, and I see that features with this bill as well.

So colleagues, in a few minutes we will be asked to forgo our rights and obligations instead of doing our full and complete job on a bill with, to say the least, a very unusual legislative journey through the House of Commons.

It’s a bill that brings significant permanent changes to the Criminal Code and employment law in Canada and is arguably not an emergency bill to address COVID-19. There are a lot of flashing red lights for sober second thought on the bill, notwithstanding the important and positive impact the bill intends to have on Canadian workers.

I submit to you that this is a shame. It’s a shame that we will not be able to do our full and complete duty with proper time and all the levers we have to improve the bill.

In June, when we ended the last session, I think we all felt a great sense of pride that we had done our work, had done it well and were looking forward to better days ahead. I don’t feel that way today. I think there is some reflection and potentially some action in the future that we need to take in order that we at all times are able to do the job that the Constitution and Canadians expect from us. Thank you.

Senator Tannas: I would agree. In fact, in your speech last night you raised your discomfort with this method of dealing with legislation. I agree with that.

On the question of unanimity in the House of Commons and how that ought to be a signal for us to waive our rights and obligations, I could argue the opposite. We are here to divorce ourselves from politics, and believe me, we would have to be the most naive creatures on the planet to think what happened with this bill didn’t involve a whole bunch of politics last night. It should be one of the first things we look at when there’s something unanimous coming from the House.

We had another example of it. It was maybe a result on Bill C-4; a result that we were all hoping for, that we would pass that bill. But the fact it came unanimously should be a cause for pause for us, not the green light to wave the thing through without our having done our jobs.

Senator Tannas: Absolutely.

Senator Housakos: Senator Tannas, I understand your perspective, and you have heard me many times echo that perspective in this chamber.

Wouldn’t you think in this particular instance, given that this bill has gone through the House of Commons with unanimous support from all parties on that side, that we have an obligation as an upper chamber to respect the democratic will of the democratic house?

Second, there are a number of amendments so far in this Forty-fourth Parliament — the example you bring up — but there were many more amendments and proposals of amendments by the Senate Chamber in the Forty-third Parliament that have been ignored. Would you agree that if we had more distinguished colleagues from this chamber in the governing national caucus on the other side on a weekly basis — I know our colleagues laugh, but I come from an era in which we had some influence on building legislation at the national caucus — would you agree with that statement?

Senator Tannas: I sure don’t want to make my friend and colleague Senator Gold uncomfortable, but you are right, Senator Batters. Senator George Baker, whose memory lives on in the chamber here — if we know him well enough, he is probably home in Newfoundland watching right now — used to talk about how the courts followed and based judgments on transcripts from the Senate.

One of the most important things that we have as an officer of the government is that we can ask a question of — and in fact we did it on Bill C-15 last spring where Senator Gold made declarations that could ultimately be important in court in the future.

So if for no other reason than that, I would say it doesn’t have to be an epic speech, but to get up, say some words and allow questions like that to be put on the record is something I would hope maybe Senator Gold might think about in the future.

It’s a very good point, Senator Batters.

[Translation]