Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: I just thought I would say a few words on this hoist motion. Senator Tannas, I really appreciated the comments you made. I've known you for some time, and I know that any research you do is taken from a neutral position. You did bring up some issues that I think very much needed to be taken into account. When we look at a bill, we should be making decisions with respect to the merits of the bill, and there obviously are some merits and there may be some disadvantages.
The hoist motion will not allow a committee to look at the merits of the bill. But what is happening is that rather than making a decision based on the merits of the bill, we're making a decision based on a problem in the political process whereby there has been a failure in communication between the opposition leaders and the government representatives in the Senate in that they have not been able to come to an agreement ahead of time, so we're faced with a hoist motion.
To me, it doesn't seem right that we should be deciding to essentially kill a bill because of our political process rather than because there's something seriously wrong with the bill. For example, if it had some constitutional deficiencies or if it was contravening the Charter of Rights, then that would be one thing. You have pointed out there are deficiencies, and it seems to me the only proper way to deal with that would be for it to go to a committee. That committee could then decide by calling in witnesses. It doesn't have to be a long, extended study. It could be fairly short.
I will not vote in support of the hoist motion because I don't think that we should be dispensing of it because I don't think there's anything seriously wrong with the bill.