Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Tannas. First, this is in no way to take away from your speech. I agreed with it 100%. As I said earlier today, Senator Tannas, I think I gave you a fair bit of credit for suggesting a way forward because of your issues about giving leave — or your caucus’s issues about giving leave — and how the Leader of the Government could move this forward.

I spent a bit of time this afternoon talking about and maybe paving the way for explanations that I have to make out there about what might be perceived as time allocation or a programming motion. So I guess I want to read something into the record and then ask you a question.

I just looked up what a programming motion, in fact, means. A programming motion can be used by the government to timetable a bill’s progress through the House of Commons by setting out the time allowed for debate at each of its stages. The motion is usually put forward for agreement immediately after a government’s bill has passed its second reading. Typically, it’s the government that would put forward a programming motion which would have time allocation, and so on and so forth.

I guess, Senator Tannas, I’m only asking this for the record because I don’t know that we need to debate what a programming motion is. I do not want to take anything away from Senator Gold. He has been very cooperative in trying to work this through. However, if the story is to be told correctly, this was actually a motion and an idea brought forward by the leader of the largest group in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in order to bring this to a close and to put some time constraints on it. The government agreed after the other four parties agreed.

I would simply like your affirmation that that, in fact, was the progress that was followed here.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those in the chamber who are opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Hon. Robert Black, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 23, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its

FIFTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island), has, in obedience to the order of reference of June 7, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendment:

1.New clause 4, page 1: Add the following after line 17:

and with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT BLACK

Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 793.)

Senator Tannas: That was work of the Senate that took something that was largely symbolic and made sure it was real.

We sat for roughly 59 days this session, with more and more senators attending in person as the months went on. This fall, we have bravely decided to come back and take up our work in person.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the second reading of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication).

Senator Patterson: Thank you for the question, Senator Plett.

Greater legal minds than mine have weighed in on this bill since it was introduced in a hurry in the other place. As I pointed out in the letter I just read, there is a clear concern that the evidentiary burden on the Crown in this bill is too high and that, in fact, there is a risk that this will allow the acquittal of persons who use this defence.

In fact, this association of concerned women’s groups has suggested simple amendments that will fix that problem of the evidentiary burden. So that perhaps could have been discussed and considered by our eminently qualified Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We could have had a bill before us and a recommendation on an amendment that would fix that flaw.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Senator Gold, you’ve sponsored so many bills lately. You have been doing a yeoman’s job, and I want to compliment you on that.

My question is a serious one. You take all of our questions seriously; I don’t mean it that way. But I’m really concerned, because we are going to study this and we will also get the House of Commons report. So my first question is: What if our two reports are different? How is that going to be handled, and where would we go from there?

I know you would be guessing, in a way; I get that. But if we get a report from the House of Commons, and it’s not something we’re going toward, is it even worth it for us to do a report?

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I too want to extend my very best wishes to all senators, our staff and employees of the Administration who serve us so well. I want to, of course, associate myself with all the expressions of gratitude and respect that were spoken by my leadership colleagues.

I want to thank my leadership colleagues for the work they do and the way in which they conduct themselves in our meetings, deliberations and negotiations. It is a privilege to work with such wonderful people.

A lot has happened this session. A number of kind of unexpected, odd, unusual and significant things have happened. I want to share some highlights that come to mind that I will remember about the last few months.

Work-related, Parliament’s Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying was brought back into existence post-election to continue an important Senate initiative of reviewing the law.

We weren’t back here very long in February before we involuntarily hosted the “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa. I frankly have never seen anything like it. The enthusiasm of the participants, unusual as they were, was something that I don’t think any of us who were here and walked the streets will ever forget.

We also saw the very first use of the Emergencies Act. That was historic. I think the Senate distinguished itself in the debate just prior to the withdrawal that was watched by hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Senator Patterson: During the debate.

Senator Tannas: Yes, I would. This would be the last one, because I know we want to move forward.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The whips propose 30 minutes. If all senators agree to 30 minutes, it shall be 30 minutes. If one senator says “no,” it shall be an hour. Do we have an agreement on the 30-minute bell?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved third reading of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication).

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move: That the sitting be suspended to await the announcement of Royal Assent, to reassemble at the call of the chair with a five‑minute bell.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 10:58 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on May 5, 2022, the Senate adjourned until Tuesday, September 20, 2022, at 2 p.m.)

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. As I have said many times, the situation Canadians are facing with passports is unacceptable. That is the position of this government, which is doing everything it can to find a solution.

If Canada commits to organizing such an event, I have faith that it will do so capably and with the brio it is known for.

[English]

Senator Patterson: Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I take it from your question, Senator Plett, that you’re not going to become a donor to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The cabinet of this government is composed of very competent and very dedicated people. I do not accept your characterization of their role in some of the problems — real though the problems are — that face Canadians. It would be invidious for me to single out the many competent members who serve this country well and honourably.

Senator Lankin: That’s barely enough time, but I will.

Senator Gold: I do not agree with the characterization of the individuals you mentioned, and so the answer, then, of course, to your question is no, I do not agree.