Senator Woo: You bring up another valuable point about why this has not come up sooner. To the extent that we had an opportunity to bring it up earlier and did not, until the last minute, does not reflect so well on us. My principal objection is not so much the last-minute nature of this amendment but the contradictory character, if I can put it that way, of its presentation: on the one hand, accepting the omnibus nature of the bill — and, in a sense, expanding on it by making this amendment — and on the other hand, not fulfilling our duty to, in fact, study this issue carefully before throwing out an amendment at third reading for consideration just a few minutes before a vote.

Senator Dasko: Thank you. You have correctly made the point that there are two separate issues here. One of the issues is the fact that these omnibus bills, as you’ve just said, are intolerable. I would guess that many of our colleagues would agree with this observation.

Would you be willing to put forward an amendment removing all reference to the Elections Act in Bill C-47, given the fact that we may not need more study of the particular issue, which is omnibus bills: good or bad? Many of us would agree we don’t need to study this topic. We would probably agree that this is not good. Would you be willing to put forward an amendment to that effect? Thank you.

Senator Duncan: Thank you. I won’t be long. I don’t want to get into a discussion of omnibus bills versus non-omnibus bills. I’ve been on both sides of that question, and I can appreciate both sides of it.

I am thinking back to when I first arrived in the Senate — it was June — and sitting on the Finance Committee. We dealt with the Federal Prompt Payment for Construction Work Act that was buried in the BIA. We’re still waiting for it to be proclaimed, for any number of reasons. It might be federal-provincial discussions. I don’t know why. I’m not privy to those discussions. Therein, we approved something, and we’re still waiting for it.

You summed it up: Members are on the horns of a dilemma here. We can certainly appreciate that it’s a minority Parliament. At the same time, we can appreciate and understand this issue you’re bringing forward. Quite frankly, anyone who has campaigned for office knows very well that political parties have a great deal of information and that this information should be protected. I also believe that a number of the political parties are not necessarily supportive of this notion.

You asked about problems and solutions. My question is this: Is there another way for the Senate to create a public discussion because we really need the Canadian public to be crying for this. Is there another way?

Senator Woo: It is nevertheless an amendment that was argued extensively by you, Senator Tannas, on the grounds that an omnibus bill is intolerable. You cannot have it both ways, to my mind — well, you can, of course, and if this amendment goes through, you will have your way.

On the one hand, if you say that this item does not belong in the bill — because it’s in annex 3, it’s buried on page 400 or wherever it might be and it has nothing to do with the budget — then the principled approach is to say, “Let’s get rid of it.” But to actually play with it and finesse it is basically going against your argument that omnibus bills should not be tolerated.

I accept your point that you are trying to provide finesse to what was intended in the BIA. However, that is exactly my point: The finesse should be done with a lot more study and consideration rather than thrown on the floor at the last minute.