Senator Gold: I will certainly pass on that request. Thank you again for your question.

Senator Plett: Certainly, Your Honour. Thank you.

Senator Tannas, when I read paragraph 2 of your motion — maybe I’m not reading it right, but it says:

. . . when a government bill has been read a first time, and before a motion is moved to set the date for second reading, the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate may, without notice, move that the bill be deemed an urgent matter, and that the provisions of paragraph 1 of this order not apply to proceedings on the bill . . .

I fully agree with you that the government’s mismanagement is not our urgent matter. But are you not allowing the government leader here to decide that their mismanagement — constant, everyday mismanagement — is in fact an urgent matter?

We were told before the bill was introduced in the House of Commons that Bill C-10 is already an urgent matter. And it’s not yet before the House of Commons. Does this not kill your entire motion?

Senator Tannas: It’s a good question. Frankly, that is a matter for debate as opposed to urging at leaders’ meetings, wheeling and dealing at leaders’ meetings, pressure in caucus or groups to stand quietly and not object, pressure on every single senator not to give leave or to give leave knowing every single senator individually — it’s actually a way to divide us all, the way that we have been doing it.

This way, the government leader would have to get up, he would have to make his case about why this is an urgent matter. We could, in debate and through questions, ask him why it’s an emergency. Then, we can actually collectively decide through a standing vote whether or not it is an emergency. It still allows for bad planning, for it to become our emergency. But we will do it on purpose and transparently, and through a vote.