Hon. Diane Bellemare: Welcome, minister. I was looking at your mandate letter earlier. You face incredible challenges with respect to federal-provincial relations, infrastructure and communities. I was thinking that the bilateral relations with each of the provinces and territories may not be an adequate tool for meeting these challenges in a major economic context where there are imminent crises, including the climate crisis.

Have you thought about creating a somewhat permanent consensus-building forum for the federal government, the provinces and territories and the private sector, a sort of economic and social council like they have in more than 70 countries around the world?

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the motion to allocate time for the consideration of the motion, as amended, to respond to the message from the House of Commons regarding Bill C-11. First of all, I’m very impressed by the senators’ eloquent debate.

I intend to vote in favour of this motion to allocate time. This is a historic day on the road to modernizing the Senate, to making it a less partisan Senate. I will say a little more later to address some of the comments made by my Conservative colleagues.

Today we have, in a sense, broken a glass ceiling in our process of modernizing the Senate. We’re voting on a motion to allocate time in the context of a Senate with four groups plus the Government Representative. This is an entirely new situation. In the past, time allocation motions were passed with only two groups in the Senate, the Conservatives and the Liberals. One of the two parties always had a majority, so the time allocation motion was passed in order to speed up the debate.

At that time, both caucuses were affiliated with their party; they had party meetings. The government’s goal was to try to get their bills passed here, or studied, but fairly quickly. Now, with several groups, it is impossible to move as quickly. It’s not easy for a government to impose its will. I think that’s the difference between the Senate of today and the Senate of yesterday. In the Senate of the 41st Parliament and prior, because the government often held a majority in both Houses, it could impose its will. The only way for the opposition party to make its point was to use delay tactics, and the time allocation motion was there to prevent those delay tactics.

In today’s environment, everything has changed, and I think as long as there are groups in the Senate that are using strategies together with their colleagues in the other place, there is a very real possibility that stalling tactics will be used. Chapter 7, which deals with time allocation motions, is an eminently important tool to deal with this issue of delay tactics that are so frustrating because they prevent debate, they prevent us from playing our role as a chamber of sober second thought, and they also keep us from voting.

Today, with the Speaker’s ruling, which was supported by everyone, we have shattered a glass ceiling. This doesn’t mean that we will use this practice often. I don’t believe that the Government Representative in the Senate and his small team are interested in doing so, because it won’t necessarily work given the number of groups. Therefore, the motion for time allocation without agreement will be used when there are delay tactics.

However, if all groups work to truly exercise their role of sober second thought, perhaps one day we won’t use rule 7-2, but rule 7-1, time allocation with agreement to indicate that there’s been sufficient debate. As there are no limits, we will be able to take the time needed. Our imaginations will ensure that we have orderly debates, such as those on medical assistance in dying, the bill to legalize cannabis and other bills.

The intent of my intervention is simply to highlight this point, especially for new senators who are perhaps wondering what they have gotten themselves into. I believe that today is an important day, but I don’t believe that this practice will be used often.

Therefore, I will be voting in favour of the motion. Thank you.