Senator Gold: Would the senator take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is permission granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes. May I have another five minutes, with leave of the chamber?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Your time is up, senator. Senator Housakos would like to ask you a question. Would you like to ask for another five minutes?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly, Senator Dupuis.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course, Senator Cormier.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. René Cormier: Would the senator agree to take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted? Please continue.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Would Senator Saint-Germain take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s exactly why I’m saying that in this case, if we want to do a pre-study, it would be urgent to get on it instead of just talking about it. If we continue to discuss this and vote next week, we’re losing out on 10 potential days of work.

No, I’ve never experienced that problem before, and I probably shouldn’t have compared journalism to politics. I just wanted to highlight this idea of using all of the time available to get things done, instead of simply talking about deadlines and saying that we don’t have enough time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Senator Francis: Is the federal government at least willing to forgive debt for Islanders living at or below the poverty line? If so, what does this process involve and how long does it take? What are the consequences of non-repayment for this population?

Hon. René Cormier: Would you agree that the Senate is the master of its own affairs? We can read the following about the Rules of the Senate on the Parlinfo site, and I quote:

The Rules of the Senate allow the Senate to examine the subject matter of a bill before the bill has been passed by the House of Commons. The bill must have been given first reading in the House of Commons but not yet been passed by it and, therefore, not introduced in the Senate.

In the context of studying a quasi-constitutional act on which the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages worked for a very long time, demonstrating the complexity of this constitutional act, would you agree, Senator Gagné, that a pre‑study is, in this case, entirely appropriate in our context?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly, and I have heard them as well. I didn’t attend the same summit you did, but of course, since we know that music and other cultural products are so central to francophone minority culture, it should be obvious that this issue is important.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is about the committee’s current mandate.

Can you tell us what the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is currently studying, and how important it is to francophones?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As I explained in this chamber, the government decided to appeal the ruling not because it is against the principle, but because the reasons set out in the ruling raise important constitutional issues that must be dealt with and determined by the Supreme Court.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you so much for this very useful information. I understand from your previous exchanges, including the one with Senator Batters, that in some cases, a pre‑study has yielded very interesting results for the subsequent study of the bill, in two ways.

In some cases, the message sent by the pre-study has resulted in amendments to the bill in the House of Commons. One case that comes to mind is the example given by Senator Batters.

In the case of medical assistance in dying not so long ago, that is, about a year and a half or two years ago, the Senate committee conducted a pre-study of Bill C-7 that did not deal with the substance of the technical details of the clauses, but rather the broad principles and thrusts of the legislative expansion.

Following the pre-study, the committee tabled a lengthy report in the Senate, which subsequently studied the bill thoroughly, drawing on the lessons learned from the committee’s pre-study. The Senate then proposed no fewer than five or six amendments, several of which were adopted by the House of Commons.

A pre-study does not mean that there will not be an in-depth study later. I understand that the government may see pre-studies as a way to speed up the subsequent study, but there is no incompatibility between a pre-study and a later substantive study that is enriched by the first.

I also understand, from what Senator Batters was saying, that the pre-study sometimes even helps enrich the debate in the other place, so pre-studies can have a positive impact.

Is that what I am to understand from the exchange between you and Senator Batters?