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.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Plett, just a second. Let us clarify this.

Senator Carignan didn’t raise a point of order; he just stood up. Are you now raising a point of order, Senator Plett?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are you, Senator Plett, raising a point of order?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Plett, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:

That the motion, as amended, be further amended:

1. by replacing sub-paragraph (b) by the following:

“(b) insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;”;

2.by adding, before the final paragraph, the following new paragraph:

“That, pursuant to rule 16-3, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be charged with drawing up the reasons for the Senate’s insistence on its amendments; and”; and

3.by replacing, in the final paragraph, the words “That a message be sent” by the words “That, once the reasons for the insistence have been agreed to by the Senate, a message be sent”.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Plett, do you have a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: No, but we’re looking for a question from you, Senator Plett.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Plett, Senator Dalphond has a question. Would you agree to answer a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Plett, a few senators would like to ask questions. Are you ready to answer some questions?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Plett, please. Senator Plett, order.

Minister, please answer.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Plett, you asked your question. Let the minister answer, please.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Plett, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carignan:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended:

1. by replacing the words “June 30, 2022” by the words “May 9, 2022”; and

2.by adding the following after the word “objective” at the end of the motion:

“; and

That, before introducing any motion on the extension or resumption of hybrid sittings of the Senate, the Leader of the Government in the Senate must:

1.table in the Senate:

(a)all opinions and guidelines from public health officials from the federal government regarding in-person meetings in the federal public service;

(b)all opinions and guidelines from public health officials from the Ontario and Québec governments regarding in-person meetings;

(c)a letter from the Clerk of the Senate outlining how the Senate sitting in person only would contravene any opinion or guideline mentioned in points (a) and (b); and

(d)a plan for a transition back to in-person sittings of the Senate as soon as practicable in accordance with the commitment made by the Senate on March 31, 2022; and

2.consult in an open and constructive manner with the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties and parliamentary groups”.

On debate. Senator Batters.