The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I believe the nays have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The vote will occur at 5:26 p.m.

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu negatived on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, as amended.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, do we have an agreement on a clock?

Honourable senators, do you give leave for a vote in 15 minutes, following the clock?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those in favour, please say, “Yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those against, please say, “Nay.”

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Will you take another question, Senator Prosper?

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, it’s hard to follow Senator Plett on his good days.

I have no prepared speech, but I took note of your different comments, and I feel compelled to put in my two cents’ worth.

Senator Tannas, I totally agree with you in regard to omnibus bills. You and I were from both in different partisan caucuses when our partisan leaders agreed to accept omnibus bills. That was something like 17 years ago and omnibus bills have not stopped since.

We brought up the issue at the Rules Committee, and the Rules Committee was operating and is still operating on consensus basis. We had no consensus, so we didn’t resolve the issue of how to deal with omnibus bills in the Senate.

We’re not about to tell the other place how to deal with their legislation and how they want to do it, but we are masters of our own chamber. Every year in December and June, we talk about omnibus bills. We make remarks in our different committee reports about omnibus bills. Yet we go home and then we come back, and we’ve forgotten until the next omnibus budget bill.

So, colleagues, can we agree — at least the members of the Independent Senators Group, and as per Senator Plett’s statement earlier, he would agree with us — that when we come back in September, it is going to be our first order of priority to agree on how to deal with omnibus bills, and send that message to the other place so they know well in advance where we stand, not at the eleventh hour?

That is the first issue that we’re discussing.

By the way, isn’t it nice that we take on an issue, and we don’t stop after 15 minutes and wait two weeks to continue that discussion? Isn’t it nice that we entertain an issue, and we can all voice our opinions and deal with the situation?

That is another thing that we, as an independent Senate, have to start to deal with: How do we manage our discussions and how do we move forward with legislation and motions? Enough is enough of this “a little bit here and a little bit there.” Enough is enough of that.

Okay, I’m going off topic. But Senator Plett got me all energized.

The other issue that is really the crux of your amendment is in regard to the Canada Elections Act. Unfortunately, in all the discussions so far, nobody has brought forth the very important issue in regard to that. It is our primary document that creates democracy in Canada.

In order to create that democracy in Canada, political parties need funding. The names of people who fund political parties — because it’s in the Canada Elections Act — will be public and transparent, because our democracy demands that. If it is public and transparent, it is also subject to a cap; individuals are maximized per year regarding donations to political parties.

How can you ensure that Elections Canada will make sure that those maximums are respected? How can we make sure that our political parties are transparent in regard to donations? It is through the Canada Elections Act and through the transparency therein.

Why do you think the other place, so far, has not been able to deal with this issue of privacy versus democratic transparency?

I understand there will be pressure on them to deal with this, but I honestly believe that Canadians who make donations to a political party understand that the system will make their names public, along with the amount of their donations. That has been on the books for 30 years.

So that’s not the issue.

How will the political parties in the other place that face elections and need to make amendments to the Canada Elections Act be able to differentiate the personal information of their donors and the transparency of political party funding and the survival of our democracy?

Colleagues, I would definitely say that the other place cannot deal with this issue because of the four political parties in the other place — not in the time frame that you would like, Senator Tannas. It is mission impossible. I think they’re all just getting their heads around this because of the process in B.C.

Senator Tannas, I believe that your intentions are good. But this is not the place to move your intention in regard to getting this privacy issue done and, Senator Deacon, in regard to personal privacy. This is not where it will be accomplished.

The third message I want to convey — and I’m taking this opportunity to say so — is that when we send a message from the Senate in regard to the budget bill, it better not be on a Canada Elections Act issue. It better be on an issue that is concerning every Canadian’s pocketbook. Then, we will, from my perspective, be justified in making an amendment and sending a message to the other place in regard to what we think. It’s like how Senator Shugart put it when he said “disproportionate” — I agree with him.

Therefore, Senator Tannas and colleagues, I will not be voting for this motion on the grounds of my statement.

Thank you.

Senator Ringuette: Yes, Senator Deacon, I am aware of those issues — having been an elected person, and having worked in a partisan caucus. The Privacy Commissioner has his specialty in regard to privacy, but the Canadian people want transparency in our political parties and in our democratic process. How will the other place — with all four political parties — be able to justly balance the two? I wish them a lot of luck.

[Translation]

Senator Ringuette: Thank you for the question. I believe that all of the items you’ve listed should be part of the discussion and part of the analysis. If we are an independent chamber, then we should be able to come to an understanding on the kind of work we want to perform.

I suppose the other question is this: Is the government putting forth omnibus bills because of the growing inefficiency in the House of Commons? If that is the case, then we have to force them to also deal with their inefficiency — for the sake of democracy.

Perhaps sometimes I have too much of an opinion for my own good. Thank you.

Senator Ringuette: Yes.

Senator Ringuette: No. Thank you.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: We are now resuming debate on the amendment. Senator Dawson, on debate on the amendment.

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I believe the nays have it.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those in favour of the motion please say “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Downe, your time for debate is over. There are three more senators who wish to question you. Are you requesting five more minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is there an agreement on a bell? One-hour bell. The vote will occur at 4:45 p.m. Call in the senators.

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Downe negatived on the following division:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Do we have people who have questions for Senator Downe? We have four minutes.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Would you take a question, Senator Downe?