Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 30 - Evidence - June 6, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 6, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-4, to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure), met this day at 4:14 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, welcome. We are here today to conduct our clause-by-clause examination of Bill S-4, to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure).
Bill S-4 was introduced in the Senate on May 30, 2006. The Special Committee on Senate Reform was created by the Senate on June 21, 2006, to study the subject matter of the bill. That committee heard from 26 witnesses and sat for close to 30 hours, holding public hearings with many recognized experts on the issues of Senate reform. Among these witnesses was the Prime Minister of Canada, who appeared on September 7, 2006, and described this bill as proposing "a modest but positive reform" for the Senate. This committee had the benefit of utilizing all the evidence gathered by the special committee, including the final report, all expert testimony and submissions and the input from provincial officials who chose to participate in the deliberations. At my request, this information was distributed to members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when we began our examination of Bill S-4.
This committee began its study of the bill on March 21, 2007. We have heard from 21 witnesses and we have sat for more than 15 hours to hear experts from across Canada as well as some colleagues from the United Kingdom. All members of the Legal Committee were given the opportunity to contribute to the list of renowned Canadians that appeared before us. The result was a lively exchange of ideas that provided senators and Canadians with the wide breadth of opinions on the place that this institution holds in Parliament today.
When a bill is the subject matter of a bill being considered by a Senate committee, in which a province or territory has a special interest, the province or territory should be invited by the committee to make written or verbal representations to the committee. In keeping with that understanding, on March 13, 2007, I wrote to each province and territory to allow them the opportunity to address this committee on Bill S-4. We received responses in due course from Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Those letters were circulated to all committee members for their consideration.
At our last meeting on Bill S-4, on May 9, 2007, the committee agreed to correspond a second time with the provinces to seek out additional commentary and request that the provinces respond no later than May 31, 2007. This third appeal to the provinces for their opinion on Bill S-4 elicited responses from Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Nunavut, Ontario, Quebec and, most recently, Newfoundland and Labrador. Professor Peter Hogg, no stranger to the work of this committee, also provided his analysis of these most recent contributions from the provinces. As was discussed at our last meeting on Bill S-4, those responses were distributed to all committee members without delay.
In the Rules of the Senate, rule 90 states:
A standing committee shall be empowered to inquire into and report upon such matters as are referred to it from time to time by the Senate. . . .
Further, rule 98 states:
The committee to which a bill has been referred shall report the bill to the Senate.
I remind honourable senators, some of whom are not regular members of this committee, that a consensus was reached during our last meeting on May 9 to seek out for a second time the commentary from the provinces and territories and, subsequent to that, we would conduct our clause-by-clause examination on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, "for certain."
We have reached the end of our inquiry on Bill S-4 and thus, to fulfil our mandate and in keeping with the consensus reached on May 9, the time has come for the committee to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
First, I remind honourable senators of a number of procedural points with respect to amendments to bills. I reviewed these points at the last meeting but some people were not here. Those who have heard them before, please bear with me: They will not take long.
This is a short bill with few clauses. However, as we have all seen, numerous elements to this bill may be open for discussion.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I remind senators that, when more than one amendment is moved in a clause, Beauchesne's, 6th Edition, citation 697(2) states:
Amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.
Similarly, Marleau-Montpetit, at page 653, states:
Amendments should be proposed following the order of the text to be amended.
Therefore, before we take up an amendment in a clause, I will verify whether any senators had intended to move an amendment that might affect a line earlier in that clause. If senators intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the priority to do so. If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I remind senators that, in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill. On this matter, I refer senators to Beauchesne's, 6th Edition, citation 698(6), which states:
An amendment to delete a clause is not in order, as the proper course is to vote against the clause standing part of the bill.
Similarly, Marleau and Montpetit, at page 656, states that:
An amendment is out of order if it simply attempts to delete a clause, since in that case all that needs to be done is to vote against the adoption of the clause in question.
If members ever have any questions about process or the propriety of anything going on, they can raise a point of order. The chair will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of the matter and then make a ruling. The committee is, of course, the ultimate master of its business within the bounds set out by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all honourable senators wishing to speak have an opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend upon your cooperation, and I ask that you think of other senators and keep your remarks on the point as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the cleanest route is to request a roll call vote, which provides clear results. The clerk, of course, would do the roll call. Senators are aware that any tied vote negatives the motion in question.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that an audio recording and transcript be made for this meeting for consultation by the research analysts and committee members?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, shall we now go clause-by-clause on this bill?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Milne: Honourable senators, since our side has lengthy observations that we hope will be appended to the bill, we suggest that I table these observations now, at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Chairman: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: No.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Andreychuk: We have been through this once before. If we are to do that, I will put on the record that you have the majority: You can outvote us again. This clause-by-clause consideration appears to be a repeat of Bill C-2 when, in fact, we have a history of observations in the Senate but those observations have been rather informally put there.
As a ruling by His Honour in 2002 said, observations do not form part of the report and should not deal with the clauses in the bill. They are simply issues that the entire committee wishes to bring to the attention of the Senate, the government or a ministry. However, they were never intended to be part of the debate or to — if I may put it an inelegant way — score points, one party against the other.
In Bill C-2 we violated that ruling, I thought, fundamentally. We had 49 pages of observations on a clause-by-clause consideration. We asked that observations not be appended at that time. We were outvoted and they were appended. As you well know, there is no ability to put in minority reports.
If this consideration will be the majority's will again, I find it very, very strange. Every other committee — and particularly the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs — has painfully gone through the bills and voting. Then we have turned to each other and asked, "Do we have any observations that we would all like to agree to?" We discuss the observations and leave it to the steering committee to draft them. Sometimes we allow the steering committee to file them if we are in a hurry, and sometimes they come back to the committee.
However, to have observations come from one side or the other — I hoped that precedent of Bill C-2 was an aberration and would not be a continuum of the will of a majority against a minority.
Senator Baker: I wonder if Senator Andreychuk would agree, then, that observations, as she says, are put informally; that what Senator Milne has said was that this side has observations — those were her exact words — and that there is nothing precluding the acceptance of those observations by the committee, as she proposed them a few moments ago.
Senator Milne: As I said, tabling them was a courtesy to the members on the other side here at the table. If you do not want to see them until after we have completed clause-by-clause consideration and we ask about observations, then we will not distribute them now. However, I wanted to distribute them now, as early as possible, to give you a chance to at least look at them.
Senator Tkachuk: If you have amendments to make, it seems to me rather strange that you have observations to table before a bill is amended. If you have problems with the bill, perhaps you could make amendments to fix those problems.
Senator Milne: All right, I will do it at the appropriate time.
Senator Tkachuk: That is good.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-4, to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Milne: How about the title?
The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1, short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Tkachuk: Agreed.
Senator Milne: Honourable senators, I have an amendment to clause 2, which I believe we can distribute to everyone.
The Chairman: Can you wait for two minutes until we have it?
Senator Milne: Surely.
The Chairman: Are there copies for everyone?
Senator Milne: Yes; it is a short amendment, too.
The Chairman: Senator Milne, you have the floor.
Senator Milne: I move that Bill S-4 be amended in clause 2 on page 2, by replacing lines 8 to 16 with the following:
29 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the place of a senator in the Senate shall, subject to the provisions of this act, be held for a term of 15 years, and the term shall not be extended or renewed.
(2) The place of a senator shall become vacant when the senator attains the age of 75 years.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), but subject to the provisions of this act, the place of a senator who is summoned to the Senate before the coming into force of the Constitution Act, 2006 (Senate tenure) shall continue to be held until a senator attains the age of 75 years.
The Chairman: Discussion, honourable senators, or debate?
Senator Tkachuk: I do not think Senator Milne wants to, but perhaps she could explain the reasons behind her amendments. If she does not want to do that, then perhaps we could reserve the right to debate this issue.
Why not go ahead, Senator Milne, and tell us that?
Senator Milne: I moved the amendment because the preponderance of the evidence before this committee was clearly that eight years is far too short. The only other term that was mentioned by anyone was from the House of Lords, which has several times debated a term of 15 years. It was also clearly in evidence before the committee that any attempt to extend or to renew the term would severely limit the independence of senators, because then they would be trying to get themselves reappointed.
The amendment also continues the present retirement age of 75 years, which, again, was clear in the evidence before the committee. It also grandfathers the present senators, and the term "grandfathers" is probably appropriate.
Senator Stratton: I think you recall throughout the hearings on this bill — it will collect a pension before we do — that the Prime Minister had offered an alternative, if we did not like the eight-year term. The suggestion on our side was that he would be open to something like 10 years, but 15, no.
Senator Bryden: I do not have much to add. The 15 years is a significant reduction.
Senator Stratton: From 45?
Senator Bryden: Yes, because it is down by two-thirds. It was chosen also on some of the evidence that we had that the average period of time that a senator serves in the Senate is 12 to 14 years. It is in keeping with the practice.
Discussions have been going on in Britain now for the last 10 years, debating how to reform the House of Lords. The government of Great Britain has approved a 15-year term if indeed they can decide whether they want an appointed or elected house. The rationale that was given to us was that the European Parliament has people elected for a maximum term of five years three times. That is 15 years but no longer than a five-year term. That is not dissimilar to the situation we have, as far as terms for the House of Commons. Our maximum term is not to exceed five years. We thought that it would make sense if we had a five-year term and, since this is a chamber of sober second thought and we would like to encourage people of experience and so on to come here, that 15 years non-renewable would give some level of independence.
One major concern that came before us was that a shorter period of time would put into question whether the bill would meet the tests of the Upper House case, where the Supreme Court of Canada said, it may be that there is a reduction of term that does not impede the independence. When asked by that reference what would be a proper term, their reply was, "Bring us a number and we will answer the question."
Therefore, the evidence was clear, and other people were here most of the time. Senator Andreychuk was here as much as I was. As we know, there was concern that a shorter term could allow the prime minister, if the prime minister had two mandates of majority government, to replace all the Senate with the prime minister's own appointments.
It is an attempt to show that the Senate is prepared to discuss and seriously address the issue of Senate reform, but without violating the rules that it shall not affect the substantive position of the Senate, and absolutely not affect the thorough independence of senators. That is some of the rationale for that term being chosen.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I have a number of other senators on my list who wish to join the debate. Before so doing, a person from the Department of Justice is here who has had a look at the language of this amendment and would like to come to the table to comment on a couple of the words. Is it agreed that Warren Newman can come to the table?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Baker: As a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the chair suggesting that we hear from the departmental representative first? I imagine that would be the best thing, would it not, prior to everyone commenting on it?
The Chairman: He will comment on a few words on this amendment, and the honourable senators who wish to speak may take those comments into consideration when they make their amendments.
Warren J. Newman, General Counsel, Constitutional and Administrative Law Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you, honourable senators, for your indulgence. I have had a quick look at this amendment. I am here simply as an official, and my comments are at the technical level. I am completely neutral on the substantive advantages or disadvantages of this particular amendment.
We discussed the possibility of amendments at the technical level with our drafters, because this amendment is a constitutional amendment and we all want to be sure that we have the wording as optimally precise as possible in the circumstances. I might suggest something, not that you must adopt it, but I will put this on the table and leave it with the clerk.
In your proposed motion, you have three clauses or subclauses. We had proposed internally something along these lines, and I will read it: "Subject to subsection (2) and sections 30 and 31" — which you have now replaced with, "subject to the provisions of this act," which is a broader encompassing of this provision — "a person summoned to the Senate after the coming into the force of the Constitution Act, 2007," — and we would suggest we change the date to 2007 — "(Senate tenure) shall hold a place in the Senate for not more than one term of . . ." — we were prudent and said nine years, given what the Prime Minister had indicated. Then our second draft clause would say, "A Senator ceases to hold a place in the Senate on attaining the age of seventy-five years."
In French, it is:
[Translation]
Subject to subsection (2) and sections 30 and 31, a person summoned to the Senate after the coming into force of the Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure) shall hold a place in the Senate for not more than one term of nine years.
The second clause states that a Senator ceases to hold a place in the Senate on attaining the age of seventy-five years.
[English]
It is substantially the same as your amendment, only a shorter version.
Senator Baker: As a point of order: Does Mr. Newman have copies of this amendment so we can look at it for two minutes? I suspect that it says exactly the same thing in a different way.
Mr. Newman: I think so.
The Chairman: In what way is yours substantively different from the amendment proposed by Senator Milne?
Mr. Newman: As far as I can tell, having looked at this amendment for only a minute, as you understand, I think our version is shorter and clearer, and we do not have the extra verbiage of the third clause, the notwithstanding clause, but I think they accomplish the same thing.
Senator Stratton: You do not need the third clause.
Senator Milne: When we said the Constitution Act, 2006, we were merely taking it off the cover page of this particular bill, where it says first reading May 30, 2006.
Mr. Newman: Yes, absolutely. We have, as well, technical proposals for changing the title, the short title and so on to say 2007 consistently throughout.
The Chairman: Are there any substantive changes in your draft from Senator Milne's that you can lay before honourable senators at this time?
Mr. Newman: No: The only thing I draw to your attention is that you have decided, as I see in your draft, to say in the first subclause that "Subject to subsection (2), the place of a senator ". . . shall, subject to the provisions of this act, be held for a term of 15 years. . . ."
As you know, our own legislative drafting section preferred the reference to sections 30 and 31 because they are more precise. They guide the reader to the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867 that are relevant in the circumstances and are more consistent with the modern drafting practice in that regard. Again, it is not a fundamental difference. I think that is all I have to say on the matter.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Does your proposal reflect the last part of subsection 29(1), where it says that terms "shall not be extended or renewed"?
Mr. Newman: Once it is clearly stated that terms are not renewable, one would think that —
Senator Robichaud: Yes, you would think that, but I did not hear it.
Mr. Newman: The other version stated that terms are non-renewable. There are many ways of saying it, but non-renewable is non-renewable.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
[English]
[English]
Senator Baker: Where does it say "non-renewable."
Mr. Newman: "Not more than" in English.
Senator Baker: I want to return to the conflict, or the question of the wording of how it differs. Senator Milne says in her motion, "shall not be extended or renewed." I can see the covering of extended, but I do not see how your wording clearly says that it will not be renewed. I understand what you are saying for "not more than one term."
The Chairman: Not more than one term.
Senator Baker: In other words, "shall hold a place in the Senate for not more than one term." Perhaps it does.
The Chairman: It covers both "renewed" and "extended."
Senator Baker: I am not convinced, but perhaps it does.
Senator Bryden: I believe this proposed amendment was assisted in its drafting by our Senate legal counsel, and I notice that it tracks almost word for word, with the exception that there is a clarification clause in there, what is in the bill now.
If you read the amendment that has been proposed, is there any ambiguity in this amendment? Is there something that would mislead someone? We are not writing poetry here: We are trying only to put clear words down. When they deal with legislation, draftsmen, and certainly lawyers, tend to track the actual words that they are trying to amend or fix. This amendment that Senator Milne proposes comes close to tracking exactly what is in the existing section and I see no ambiguity. Apart from brevity, I do not see that your suggested change adds anything.
The Chairman: Mr. Newman, are the draftsmen who drafted your proposed amendment the same ones who, as Senator Bryden says, drafted what is in the bill? Are they the same draftspeople?
Mr. Newman: No, as Senator Bryden indicated, counsel here in the Senate have assisted in the drafting.
The Chairman: No, he is talking about the original bill, Bill S-4 that we have before us. The draftsmen on the Hill followed the bill and I am asking you: Are the draftspeople who drafted the original Bill S-4 the same draftspeople who drafted your amendment?
Mr. Newman: Yes, they drafted both your proposed amendment and our technical draft, which is not necessarily politically supported. The technical draft will support the replacement of lines 8 through 16 as yours would. It is the way we came at it, after a number of sessions with the drafters, trying to come up with clear language. We had internal discussions on how to draft this and how to make it as clear as we could. I am not casting aspersions on this draft. Maybe it is not poetry, but we have a version that we thought was clear. In any event, we have to change the date of the legislation to the Constitution Act, 2007. We thought it might be useful for the committee to see an alternative version, as proposed by the drafters of Bill S-4.
Senator Fraser: On the matter of technical amendments — while I know brevity is normally wonderful and I support it — in a case as important as an amendment to the Constitution, I rather like spelling things out clearly, so that no one who reads a passage, whether a lawyer or not, can have any doubt on what is intended.
On the substance, we were discussing the matter of length of term and it seemed to me that there were a couple of considerations to bear in mind here. One, as Senator Bryden noted, is that under the original bill, a prime minister who held office for eight years and two months, as many have done, would have named every single member of the Senate of Canada. Surely, one of the advantages of this institution is that we have been named by different prime ministers with their various, different criteria before we even go into partisan elements. However, there would be an obvious danger that we would end up with a one-party Senate, whatever that party might be. I doubt if any of us would think that was a good idea.
Fifteen years would be the legal limit for three Parliaments, and I would think in most cases, a prime minister would not serve for that long so that would eliminate that danger.
The Chairman: Mr. Newman is not pushing that.
Senator Fraser: I understand that, but I am back on the original discussion of why we support 15 years.
The Chairman: Some people may want to ask questions about your draft. Could you please stay for a few more minutes?
Senator Fraser: Fifteen years is still, for an appointed chamber, not a long term. I look around the table and around the Senate chamber at the senators from the government side. You have all been senators, I am not sure of your appointed dates, for 14 years, which is longer than I have been a senator. I have worked with all of you. I have learned and continue to learn from all of you and expect that to continue as the years go by. The most extraordinary contributions to the institution frequently come from senators who have been here a long time.
However, I think we also have to pay decent respect to the opinions of mankind and that 15 years is probably about as long as the public could understand being a reasonable term. I therefore support a 15-year term and have done so for a long time. I continue to do so.
It also seems to me important to note that in the Prime Minister's original proposal for an eight-year renewable term, a senator who received only one renewal would serve 16 years. We are actually coming in with slightly less than Mr. Harper himself was willing to contemplate, and that is worth reminding ourselves of as we go forward.
Senator Andreychuk: My recollection is that the Prime Minister did not talk about a renewal; the problem is that the act is silent. For the record, I would have agreed to an amendment if it was a stand-alone amendment that there be no renewals, that we are talking about one term.
Personally, from the evidence before us, I am persuaded that 15 years is too long. I have no difficulty with eight, but I would take something more than eight if it were in the spirit of a compromise. From the evidence, 15 years was the outside limit of most of the evidence. A lot more evidence from the House of Lords tended toward 12 years.
However, with respect, I think the House of Lords is different and we made that point. Ten years would be fine. I thought that point might have been negotiable — 15 years is entirely too long. I take it from a personal point of view.
If we pass the amendment, I think we are changing somewhat the perception that people come in here and stay until they are 75. They would come in with an idea of service, and then they would move on to something else. Or they may not, if they were appointed later in life, but they would know that they had an optimum number of years to do what they wanted to do. They would start with learning about the place, and then they would have their own experiences and issues and they would know how long they had to drive them, if I can put it in blunt language.
I think 15 years is too long. It puts them in that position, "I am here for 15 years; if I am 40 years old, what do I do after age 55?" We do not have to stay for 15 years; we could all resign, but you know what it is like to resign. It is not that easy to move on, let us put it that way.
If we are trying to bring a lot of people in — disparate points of view and minority points of view — I think a better compromise is 10 years and even 12 years — 15 years is too long.
I support non-renewable terms but, unfortunately, that provision has been trapped with the rest. I am adamantly against section 29(2). I have spent too many years arguing that we should look at people's abilities, not their ages. We make a distinction when we go to the lower end of the age spectrum because there is a maturation process. The human rights legislation, nationally and internationally, understands the difference of someone from zero years and up, and we have set maturation at different points. We can drink at a certain age, we can drive at a certain age, we can serve our country at a certain age, we can vote at a certain age and we could sit as a senator at a certain age.
I understand the reason for the first limit, but take out the limit of 75. I think I chafe under it now. One of our witnesses pointed out that a judge who will serve on some tribunal — an excellent person, whose skills cannot be replicated by anyone else — was able to be appointed at age 82. He is unusual; and I think each one of us should be judged on our competence to handle the task, as are others in Canada.
I do not want to say to Canadians, You are 75, you are of no use in your political process. Okay, try running in the House. I do not accept that; I think it is contrary to basic human rights and dignity of seniors in our country. To put this in the act means somebody over 60 cannot be appointed.
Senator Fraser: Why not?
Senator Andreychuk: Then they serve for what — three years, four years, five years? You have said they need to be here for a long period of time to know this place but it will be okay if some prime minister appoints senators for two years, three years or one year — the age 73 syndrome. I have a lot of problems with that.
Frankly, I do not understand why we have the last subsection here; we have never talked about it. We talked about being grandfathered, and there is this little strange thing that says, "who is summoned to the Senate before coming into force." It is under a warrant; we are summoned here. We cannot take our places in the Senate until we are sworn in, so we have that bit.
Are we talking here about people who might have been under a warrant but have not taken the oath of office that we are trying to cover, or are we trying to cover all of us? If it is only us, I think it is redundant. I thought the act, by implication, did that, but I would ask either Senator Milne or our justice person to explain why it is necessary.
The Chairman: Mr. Newman, in Senator Milne's third paragraph, is that the way of grandfathering?
Mr. Newman: It is one way. When I first looked at it, my first reaction was, do we need this third clause at all? However, again, it is there to be clear or precise, I assume. The approach of this clause, as I see it, is to say that the place of a senator who is summoned before the coming into force of this act shall continue to be held; whereas our draft, of course, is "a person summoned to the Senate after the coming into the force of Constitution Act, 2007," which we thought was more straightforward because it clearly indicates at what point the new clause operates. It operates from now on, so to speak — from the Constitution Act, 2007, onwards — rather than looking back to the situation before the clause came into force.
Senator Andreychuk: That is my point. This sounds like a self-serving clause: We want to be sure that we are grandfathered, where I thought the other is that life will go on in the Senate rules and the Constitution will apply, except for those coming in.
Senator Tkachuk: I find, as I become older, I am more opposed to age discrimination. Perhaps, at the same time, we could put an amendment in there that those who are grandfathered hang around until they die, but that would be a little self-serving. The whole concept of this bill was to reform the Senate. It was not to institute minor amendments that would keep the Senate as it is, which is really what these amendments do.
The idea of eight years is not something the government pulled out of a hat. It was arrived at after a look at what is happening in the rest of the world, which is passing us by as far as the democracy for a second chamber is concerned. When I meet with a delegation from Chile and they tell me that their senators are elected, and I tell them that ours are still appointed, it seems a little strange for me.
Even though we have often talked about the House of Lords, the Lords are not paid. I do not know how many there are — 800 or 900 — but it is a whole different system than here, and a whole different purpose as well. The House of Lords is not at all parallel to the Senate in Canada.
The eight-year term is intended to ensure that the tenure of senators is consistent with the principles of modern democracy. Fifteen years is not. At the special Senate committee, I will quote from its report:
. . . virtually none of our witnesses dismissed the creation of a term limit per se and, indeed, most strongly supported it. These witnesses pointed out that limited terms would dispel the image, so harmful to the Senate, of "jobs for life," and re-invigorate the Senate with a constant influx of fresh ideas.
The idea that with this reform, suddenly the Senate will be filled with senators serving eight-year terms is not right because we are all grandfathered. We will retire at different times. This process will take place over a long time. It is not that we will have a clean slate and all senators will be appointed, because that will not happen. Appointments will be made as positions come open. Therefore, it will not be possible for a prime minister, unless that prime minister serves a long time, to fill the Senate all with their own appointments. In that particular case, a prime minister would fill the Senate with their own appointments anyway. That argument makes no sense whatsoever.
A number of highly regarded studies of Canada's Senate recommend that limited terms be implemented. The 1994 report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform recommended the implementation of a nine-year term for senators. That committee also concluded that should Parliament wish to pursue this amendment, it could be implemented under the authority of section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Other studies, such as the 1981 report of the Canada West Foundation Task Force on Regional Representation and the 1985 report of the Alberta Select Committee on Senate Reform, both recommended that terms be limited to the life of two parliaments.
If Parliament adopted an eight-year term for the Canadian Senate, it would have the second longest term of a current second chamber. Among countries that have limited terms, only France, at nine years, would have a longer term.
The concept of 15 years seems to me to not really reform the Senate. Both amendments change the bill dramatically, that is, change the bill from 15 years and put the age limit of 75 in, which I totally disagree agree. I agree with Senator Andreychuk. When I quit joking about it, I am serious. That would mean that senators chosen at the prime of their life, or after they have finished serving their community and their profession, at age 55 or age 65 would not be appointed for a 15-year term, which you say is necessary. All those people over the age of 60 would serve a shorter term than 15 years.
For all those reasons, I think these amendments gut the bill and are not within the spirit of the bill. We will see what the House says about them if you decide to use your majority to pass them. I think they would find these amendments to be ridiculous and almost laughable. Nonetheless, pursue it and let them decide.
I can say what I want here, Mr. Chairman. Those are my views on this amendment. Of course, we are all such independent senators that I ask all honourable senators to have another look and perhaps vote against this amendment.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, in 12 minutes, the bells will ring, as you know, and we will suspend and go back to the chamber for a vote, following which we will resume. If there is time before we suspend, I wanted to put some questions to Senator Milne about her amendment.
Senator Baker: I will keep it to one minute, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to remind the honourable senator who spoke that the Province of Ontario, the Province of Quebec, the Province of New Brunswick and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador told us in writing in the last six days that we should scrap this bill. Those provinces make up far more than 50 per cent of the population of the country.
As to the amendment itself, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the drafters who are appearing. These remarkable drafters are respected everywhere. They cover all our government departments, and they do a magnificent job. However, in their haste to shorten the wording and to consolidate the matter more, I think the amendment proposed by Senator Milne is more acceptable simply because it solidifies two groups of people and spells out the situation beyond any doubt.
The present section 29 has two sections. One section deals with senators who presently sit, prior to that amendment being introduced, and the second section deals with new senators. So does this amendment. The extra wording comes from the proposed subsection 29(3). If you count the words, that is where the excess in wording is. It identifies a senator who was summoned to the Senate before the coming into force of this present act, as that senator was spelled out in the original section 29 that we are amending.
Whereas both sections say the same thing, it is better, as you know, chair, to have something spelled out right in the law rather than to assume that section 29(2), as proposed by the drafters, would not be a preference to what has already been proposed with an additional subsection (3).
Senator Fraser: On the order of clauses and whatnot, I also went back and looked at section 29. Section 29, as it now stands, is odd. As it worked out, it has the grandfather provision first, serve for life, and then it has the new provision that was the one that was to stand for all the coming years. It seems to me preferable first to set out the new provision, and then tuck in the grandfather provision after the fact. If it is worded that way, this wording strikes me as being appropriate.
On the matter of age limits, if we had an elected Senate, then it would be entirely appropriate to have no age limits. It would be up to the people of Canada to decide if they wanted to elect, as sometimes they do in the United States, a 93-year-old. We do not have an elected chamber. We have an appointed chamber, and we are likely to do so for a while to come, I expect. It is not a matter of saying, "We do not have age limits anywhere else." I really think that the best parallel for us to examine is judges. I do not want to overstate the case, but there is a certain parallel with judges, including judges of the Supreme Court. They must retire at age 75, not because any one of them has necessarily lost their faculties, but because of the general human fact that, as we age, we will probably, sooner or later, find some of our faculties diminished. Age 75 seems like a good cut-off for judges, and it seems like a good cut off for me. I would not relish the prospect of having many people appointed to the Senate at the age of 84, for example. It seems to me that this age limit is a perfectly reasonable, rational way to go for an appointed Senate, and all that we now have before us is an appointed Senate.
Senator Stratton: I will go back to —
Senator Hervieux-Payette: He is close to 75; that is why he is not in favour of this change.
Senator Stratton: Are we getting personal now?
Senator Andreychuk: That is on the record. You can use that.
Senator Stratton: I wanted to raise the point that when I first heard the term limit by the Prime Minister of eight years, I thought about it and thought that I could support it simply because eight years sounds about right. However, I could also listen comfortably to proposals for a 10-year term. The evidence we heard was overwhelmingly for the nine- to-12-year period. I think only one or two of the witnesses proposed 15. The average was around 10 years for the lengthy list of witnesses that came before us. We need to be cognizant of that fact and listen to the experts that both sides proposed.
Looking at the term of 15 years, historically that may have been okay. In other words, governments could sit for a maximum of a five-year term — three appointments at five years makes 15 years. We have experienced prime ministers recently that have sat for three terms. That makes 15 years. However, that is not accurate any longer. What is accurate today is the fact that we are now into four-year terms for Parliament so that makes three times four years, or 12 years. That maximum for a term is entirely logical.
It leads to a further compromise to consider. Forgive me but I do not think that the Canadian public will buy 15 years. I think they will say to us that it is inappropriate. Then, it becomes a matter of protecting ourselves. We are this enclosed body that does not want to listen to public opinion and that is where I think we are today. My experience recently is not that the Senate should be reformed, but it should be eliminated, as the province of British Columbia stated in the first paragraph of their letter: Get rid of the Senate; abolish it.
I believe that is where the Canadian public is going now. That is where they are transitioning to. Forgive me, but that is what I am hearing. When I talk to people, that is what I hear. I am afraid this amendment will push them even more. I suggest you think about the 15 years and consider the 10 years that was proposed by the government side. Thank you.
The Chairman: Senator Milne, I have a question.
In view of the suggestion brought forward by the Department of Justice, particularly in relation to the year 2007, would someone on your side consider making a technical sub-amendment to change the date to 2007? What is your wish on that?
Senator Milne: Mr. Newman, because the present bill before us states "coming into force of the Constitution Act, 2006, (Senate tenure)." The front page says, "first reading May 30, 2006." I am willing to change the amendment to 2007 if that is the correct terminology.
Mr. Newman: That would be our view, senators, namely that you make the appropriate amendment through your own drafters to that proposed amendment. When you move to clause 1, especially when you go back to the titles and so on, you will change those accordingly, as well, so that the years line up and we do not end up with an amendment, as we have with some, which were passed after the year of the amendment itself and the title.
Senator Tkachuk: That is a neat historical record, though. That should be eliminated, unfortunately.
Senator Milne: I believe that the first reading was in May 2006.
Mr. Newman: Yes, that was the point. It was a while ago.
Senator Milne: That was before it went to the special committee. I am willing to change that.
The Chairman: Senator Bryden or Senator Baker can do that.
Senator Baker: I so move.
Senator Milne: That section 29(3) of our proposed amendment be altered to read "the Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure)."
The Chairman: That is the amendment, as proposed by Senator Baker.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The bells will ring in a few minutes so shall we suspend, honourable senators?
Senator Baker: How long are the bells?
The Chairman: Fifteen minutes.
Senator Baker: Is there further discussion on this? To vote on it would not take that long.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, in amendment to the motion at clause 2, as amended, that Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure) — shall I dispense with reading it?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Including the sub-amendment?
Senator Stratton: You cannot, sorry. The bells are ringing. I do not want anyone screaming in the Senate chamber that we did not have time to get back to the chamber.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we shall now suspend for the vote in the chamber.
The committee suspended at 5:16 p.m.
The committee resumed at 5:45 p.m.
Honourable senators, I will put the question on the amendment of Senator Milne that Bill S-4 be amended in clause 2 on page 2 by replacing lines 8 to 16 with the following: 29(1) —
Shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
Senator Robichaud: As amended.
The Chairman: Yes, as amended with the 2007. All those in favour of the motion in amendment will please say, "yea."
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chairman: Contrary minded?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chairman: Carried, on division. Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried — no division. Shall clause 3, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Tkachuk: Clause 3, as amended?
Senator Andreychuk: We agreed to that.
Senator Stratton: Back up. How is clause 3 of the bill recorded as a vote?
The Chairman: Carried, on division.
Senator Stratton: No: Clause 3 carried.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?
Senator Milne: At this point, do we need to change the 2006 to 2007?
The Chairman: Would someone propose that as a motion?
Senator Fraser: So moved.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Fraser that the phrase 2006 be amended to 2007. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Senator Milne: I move an amendment that the bill, as amended, carry with the following recommendation to be included in the committee's report:
That the bill, as amended, not be proceeded with at third reading until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled with respect to its constitutionality.
The Chairman: May I have a copy of that, please?
Senator Milne: Yes.
The Chairman: Is it possible for the other members to receive a copy of the language to see the wording?
Senator Milne: We do not have copies of that and I apologize, so I will repeat it:
That the bill, as amended, not be proceeded with at third reading until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled with respect to its constitutionality.
Senator Stratton: Is this a report or what is it?
Senator Milne: This is a recommendation.
Senator Stratton: It is a recommendation, so it is not a part of the bill itself?
Senator Milne: No, it is a recommendation attached to the bill — to the report.
Senator Andreychuk: It is a recommendation within the report of the amended bill. Is that we are saying, Senator Baker?
Senator Baker: The mover of the motion.
Senator Milne: It is a recommendation within the report of the amended bill.
Senator Tkachuk: Let me get this straight so I understand what is going on here. You have amended the bill so it bears little resemblance to its original intent, and now you are recommending that your amendments be sent to the Supreme Court?
Senator Milne: Yes, that the bill as amended not be proceeded with at third reading until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled with respect to its constitutionality.
The Chairman: Rule 98 of the Rules of the Senate of Canada states that when a committee is examining legislation, the committee must report the results of its review of the bill. What are the results of the committee's review? This recommendation says that the bill as amended not to be proceeded with, so this recommendation is a motion to quash the bill.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Milne: It is not a motion to quash the bill whatsoever. It is a motion to ensure that the bill as amended goes to the Supreme Court.
Senator Fraser: Chair, it is true that this is an unusual proceeding, but it is an unusual bill. It is not every day that we have to deal with an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. I think that all senators will recall that numerous witnesses and now several provinces have raised serious concerns about the constitutionality of Bill S-4.
Senator Stratton: Several provinces also said we should get rid of the —
Senator Fraser: Those views are shared by a number of senators. If we complete this procedure, we make a good faith effort to make this bill constitutionally acceptable, which in our view Bill S-4 in its original form was not, but it is our best effort.
Senator Tkachuk: You are the Supreme Court.
Senator Fraser: No, we are not. That is the whole point. We are not the Supreme Court. Even in its amended form, we cannot be sure that it is constitutionally acceptable. This is our view of what a good Senate tenure bill would look like, but we do not think we can amend the Constitution of Canada if there are serious doubts raised by serious people about whether the amendment is constitutionally valid.
Senator Andreychuk: When you say it is unusual, I think it is more than unusual. I urge my colleagues to rethink what they are asking this committee to do in a public way. The government put a bill forward. This committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, is to look at its legality and its constitutionality. We have called many witnesses. It is the prerogative and the responsibility of this committee to determine whether that bill is constitutional and whether it is appropriate. If members of the committee feel it is not appropriate, they can vote it down, they can amend it, or they can agree with it. Here we have gone through an exercise of saying, "We believe the provinces," which is fair enough. I happen to think they did not dissuade me, or members can say, "We believe Professor X or Y." We amend a government bill, and then we say to the Supreme Court, "We have amended a bill. We have practically created a new bill. Please tell us if we are right."
That is strange because traditionally, there has been a position where we have a bill before us and we cannot agree on the constitutionality of it, and we might suggest it go to the Supreme Court if it is so fundamental. I will not go into why a bill should go to the Supreme Court, because that is a different issue, but assuming we all agree, we would send a government bill to the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. Here we have determined what parts are constitutional because members have chosen amendments. Members have chosen amendments, I presume, to make the bill acceptable according to the terms of this committee. Then committee members say, "I am not sure of myself. We are not absolutely certain, so we want a Supreme Court guarantee."
I go back to what Senator Hays said here. I go back to what we say over and over again. We have to be masters of our own house. Why would we give up our responsibilities, our privileges, our rights, and run to the Supreme Court to ask if we are right? They would not need us. If everything we do needs a stamp of approval by the Supreme Court, why do we have a committee? Why do we spend the time on that?
My point is, committee members choose. If we want to have a constitutional reference to the Supreme Court, we should have discussed that on the government's bill, not on our bill, or choose our amendments and let us go.
On third reading, I would put forward the position that I do not think the Supreme Court needs to intervene. Eminently qualified constitutional experts convinced me that it is constitutional, and I hope that others would argue their positions, whichever way they want to go. If we say that someone disagreed, whether that be provinces, professors or whoever, and the minute someone disagrees we move to send the issue to the Supreme Court, or if the provinces say every time there is a constitutional amendment, that their interpretation needs to be taken into account, then we do not need section 44 in the Constitution, because reserved in section 44 are those things that do not require provincial say-so.
Senator Rompkey: We are in much the same position as we were with the Constitution itself, which went to the Supreme Court because the provinces disagreed. There was no agreement among them. This bill is a constitutional bill as well. To lump in premiers with constitutional experts misses the point. The Senate is here to represent the provinces. That is one of our reasons for existing, as I understand it. The six of us from Newfoundland and Labrador feel that we represent a province. That is what we understand. That is the reason we are here, as far as I am concerned. If the premier of my province says that he has difficulty with this bill, then I want it to go to the Supreme Court for a ruling as to its constitutionality. I do not think we can say that the premiers are like professors or any other expert who comes in front of us. They are duly elected leaders of a province, and I think we are bound to listen to their views and to react to their views and to obtain a clear and unequivocal statement of how we are to proceed.
Senator Andreychuk: I think we heard them. We weighed their evidence. Senator Rompkey, I sat through this, and I weighed what the premiers said. I also see section 44, and I weigh that we should be masters of our own house. There is a balance in our Constitution and, if we have any say or any worth, our opinion has to count too. There matters are distinctly within the Senate. The courts have ruled on it, with respect. I have given due diligence to the provinces. I am not discounting them.
Senator Rompkey: Are you including the new letters?
Senator Andreychuk: Yes, that includes the new letters. I have read all of them.
Senator Tkachuk: I want to make a couple of points. Why would we, as a Senate, give up our prerogative to amend certain aspects of the Constitution? Why would we, as a federal body, give up our right to do that, and turn the right over to the provinces? That is exactly what you are saying.
My interpretation of how I represent my region on federal matters is my interpretation, not my premier's interpretation. I listen to my premier, as I listen to everyone else, but that does not mean my premier is right. Giving up our prerogatives by saying I will always vote the way my premier wants —
Senator Rompkey: You are putting words in my mouth. That is not what I said.
Senator Tkachuk: I am sorry. What did you say?
Senator Rompkey: I did not say that I had to say what he says. He is making an objection, and we are bound to listen to that objection and to obtain clarity.
Senator Tkachuk: You are bound to listen to it, that is correct? You may be bound to listen to it —
Senator Rompkey: Not necessarily to repeat, but we are bound to listen.
Senator Stratton: Senator, your province has clearly said we should abolish the place. Why not listen to that?
Senator Rompkey: My province did not say that. One province said we should abolish the place.
Senator Stratton: British Columbia?
Senator Rompkey: Yes, British Columbia — one province.
Senator Stratton: And Manitoba — should we not listen to those people? That is the region I represent; we should abolish the place.
Senator Rompkey: Then you should bring forward a bill to abolish the Senate, if you want to.
Senator Stratton: Exactly.
Senator Tkachuk: I will return to what you did here, so it is clear. You amended a government bill, emasculated the bill and put your terms into the bill. Then you said, we will refer it to the Supreme Court, which, in effect, kills the bill. I do not mind if you kill the bill. I want you to stand up in the chamber and vote against the bill, or vote against it here in committee. Do not waste my time with amendments that change the bill from eight years to 15 years; eliminate the main reason for the bill, which is reform, put in a 15-year term, and put back age 75; and then expect me to listen to you using this as an excuse to send it to the Supreme Court. That does not make any sense whatsoever.
I cannot believe it is happening here, but it is what you wish. Your particular actions, in effect, kill the bill; and I want it on the record that is what I think. I think that is what the people will think — that your actions are to vote against Senate reform and vote against this bill. After a year of this process, we have these amendments and then a reference to the Supreme Court, which, in effect, kills the bill. That is what you are doing.
I would rather have you stand up in the Senate and make your arguments of why this bill should not happen and then vote against the bill. Then people will judge you for what you are. That is all I have to say, chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Tkachuk. Next on my list is Senator Baker. Before you take the floor, senator, can I ask, in addition to the point that you will make, that you also speak to rule 100 of the Rules of the Senate, which reads:
When a committee to which a bill has been referred considers that the bill should not be proceeded with further in the Senate, it shall so report to the Senate, stating its reasons. If the motion for the adoption of the report is carried, the bill shall not reappear on the Order Paper.
In other words, the bill is quashed, which I said earlier. Can you please explain whether you are operating under this section now?
Senator Baker: No, we are not operating under that section. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be difficult to find an exact section under which we are operating. These extraordinary times call for extraordinary solutions. I think if you looked in Erskine May, at the introduction to the section that deals with reports from committees, you will see the answer to your question perhaps.
Of course, I can understand, being confronted with a motion such as this one, that even you, in your position as a former professor of law and someone who knows a lot about this subject that is before us, would perhaps be a little confused as to what the mechanism is that we are triggering in this particular instance. The mechanism is this: that the committee reports to the Senate, and in the report to the Senate, the committee is making a recommendation. We believe that recommendation would need to be put to the Senate and it would need to be voted on. That is it.
When you read the exact wording of Senator Milne's motion, it is that this committee "recommend to the Senate." It does not say how the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada would be carried out because, as honourable senators are probably aware, the only body that I believe can refer this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada would be the Government of Canada.
The Chairman: There are others; the provinces.
Senator Baker: In our motion, the provinces will not do that. That is it. We are voting on a motion now that will be voted on as a recommendation. The results of this motion will be voted on as a recommendation in the Senate and, if approved, this bill will not go to third reading. It will not go to third reading until after the matter is referred to the Supreme Court of Canada as a reference.
The Chairman: The rule says that if the motion for the adoption of the report is carried, the bill shall not reappear on the Order Paper. What would be carried is that the bill, as amended, not be proceeded with at third reading.
Senator Baker: Yes, but Mr. Chairman, we are not killing the bill here. We are including a recommendation.
The Chairman: That it be killed elsewhere.
Senator Baker: No; if you put it that way, chair, you would be doing by the back door what you cannot do by the front door. It is not covered by the rule that you read because if we were to proceed under the rule that you read, we would defeat the bill right here and now. This is not defeating the bill; this is an amendment to the bill that will be referred back to the Senate at report stage. Included in it will be the recommendation that it not proceed to third reading. The motion would not be made by His Honour, "When shall this bill be read a third time?"
It will be dealt with in the Senate as a report recommendation by the committee. In other words, it would accomplish it indirectly because we are not killing the bill. If we were to kill the bill, that would be a different measure.
We are answering the Supreme Court of Canada, in their December 1979 judgment, in which the Supreme Court of Canada said, give us a number. That is what they said, chair, and you realize that. They said, we cannot pass judgment on the constitutionality of tenure until we have a number; and this bill suggests a number.
We are saying that it would not pass with a term of eight years. However, we are giving it a chance at least to obtain a judgment based on 15 years. Hopefully, also the Supreme Court of Canada will pass judgment on Bill C-43 as well, as two measures that are before the chamber.
The Chairman: It is not before the Senate.
Senator Baker: It is before the House of Commons though.
The Chairman: You have answered my question, Senator Baker.
Senator Milne: Senator Baker has said it far better than I can. As far as I am concerned — and we are, after discussion, concerned — this bill, as it originally stood before it was amended, was clearly unconstitutional. We have tried our best to make it pass the constitutional test; but, frankly, I believe it must go to the Supreme Court because this matter affects the Senate, and will affect the Government of Canada, forever. I believe this bill is clearly a constitutional matter that affects the provinces; it affects their representation in the Senate.
Three regions of the country are represented in the premiers of the provinces who have spoken clearly against this bill: The region of Ontario, the region of Quebec and two of the premiers from the Atlantic Provinces.
Senator Bryden: I want to touch on a couple of things. In the Upper House case, the court said:
In creating the Senate in the manner provided in the Act, it is clear that the intention was to make the Senate a thoroughly independent body which could canvass dispassionately the measures of the House of Commons. This was accomplished by providing for the appointment of members of the Senate with tenure for life.
"Thoroughly independent" is equated with the type of independence that applies to the Supreme Court judges. The question that still remains in my mind and the mind of others, even having done what we have done to try to fit it into the Upper House situation, is that we will still dramatically affect, and that is the important word.
When the federation occurred, it was as a result of negotiation among three provinces. There would be no Confederation of Canada if there had not been a Senate. It was set up in the manner in which it was set up, to counterbalance the House of Commons and counterbalance the fact that the two larger provinces, Quebec and Ontario — and they are still are the larger ones — would always win if it came to a rep-by-pop situation. We were permitted to people our house with appointments on a regional basis for equal representation across the country.
The reason for that is because the senators representing those regions would be able to represent the smaller provinces in particular or the regions in general, in the federal government in matters of legislation affecting their region. The Senate also would have the independence to provide second thought for the laws made in the House of Commons. That is absolutely the deal.
The Chairman: Those are the principles for the Senate: Represent the regions, protect minorities and be a body of sober second thought over the impetuous lower house.
Senator Bryden: Yes, and to be thoroughly independent in carrying out that responsibility. The problem, even with the amendments, is that the maximum independence was probably when they held life tenure. Then the Supreme Court stated, when they dropped tenure to age 75, that the change really did not affect independence because tenure was to age 75 and it was a housekeeping type of amendment.
Five amendments — do not ask me to list them — have been made under section 44 and they have all been of a housekeeping type. Indeed, an example of what a section 44 amendment would be was referenced, when it was put in place in the Constitution. What sort of thing would it be? It would be if it was decided to change the quorum for the Senate. That would be a section 44. Parliament on its own can do that. It will not affect the other members of the contract.
The Chairman: It would also be any of the other things not listed in section 42(1) and 42(2) when they itemized the four things that cannot be done by section 44.
Senator Bryden: The problem is we heard a huge amount of evidence saying that if that were the case, if it refers only what is listed in section 42, the amending formula that exists under section 82 does not distinguish between the Senate and the House of Commons. If, under section 44, we can change the tenure of senators, under section 44, we can also change the tenure of members of the House of Commons without referring to anyone else.
We can also effect the right to vote; who has the right and who does not. Indeed, I think someone here indicated that effecting the tenure down to one year or close to one year would disturb the independence of the senators in doing their job as part of the vital institution that it is.
Our problem is that there is some point — and we also may have gone over that point — of reducing the tenure when we will have affected the independence somewhat. It will have been reduced somewhat. The courts must decide whether even that reduction to 15 years is enough to prevent that amendment from carrying.
I want to leave that.
We have missed one other thing throughout, and it is what has all the provinces concerned. Only one province, by the way, supports what is being done here without qualification and that province is Alberta. Alberta supports what is being done through section 44. With every one of the other provinces, the principal preamble is that we should not do this on a piecemeal basis.
There should be open and honest consultation among the members of this Confederation and that has not happened. That situation is what has caused the Province of Ontario, the Province of Quebec, the Province of New Brunswick, the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to make the intervention they did, at our request. They have said: Stop the bill. We are saying that we do not know if we are in a position to stop the bill because these provinces have requested us to.
Senator Tkachuk: You are in a position to stop the bill.
Senator Bryden: In our opinion, it would not be the proper thing to do. We have thought this through as hard as we can and we are attempting to say, now we want the opinion of the Supreme Court rather than put something in place. Supposing we were able to put something in place and it functioned for four or five years. Then there is the Supreme Court reference and they find that all the things that happened since those senators were appointed are null and void. The word that was used, and you would have heard it at the hearings too, is constitutional chaos: those were the words used.
We are trying to do our legislative job and we are trying to do our job as representatives in this committee of significant players in the Confederation. I do not understand why the government felt that they had to proceed without talking to their partners.
The Chairman: They did: We had some evidence that they took advice that proceeding this way was constitutional under section 44. That evidence is before this committee.
Senator Bryden: Some evidence is before them, but the preponderance of evidence before this committee was the other way.
The Chairman: However, all the evidence before this committee includes the evidence of the special committee as well.
Senator Bryden: Even then, little attention was being paid to the constitutionality. The emphasis was on the period of the term. One reason that members of the Senate said, "We must refer this bill to our standing committee, whose specialization is legal and constitutional affairs" — was to examine in detail the constitutionality of this bill. That is where we are. We believe the motion has been made because we want the opportunity for government to refer the amended bill to the Supreme Court for a ruling.
They are not required to do that because they can do what they want. However, I do not know why they would not do it. If they are right, then there is nothing for them to fear. If they are wrong, then we should know that now. There is a reason that it is difficult to amend a Constitution. It is supposed to be difficult to amend a Constitution. This is one of three major pillars of our Confederation.
Anyway, I have finished my lecture; that is the best I can do.
The Chairman: In the course of your lecture, you said you did not know if I was present for the discussion on chaos. I was here, and I do not know if you were here when officials from the Department of Justice came back before the committee and dispelled the concept of chaos. That was clearly before our committee as well and you did not advert to that.
An Hon. Senator: It is in the observations.
The Chairman: I have not seen them. There was another side. There was a response to your reference to the chaos by the Department of Justice who re-appeared before the committee.
Senator Bryden: I saw that and there is a reference to it. I did not agree with it, by the way.
The Chairman: I am trying to be objective.
Senator Bryden: We took that into account.
Senator Fraser: I offer one observation and three clarifications. The observation is that the Supreme Court of Canada, on occasion, takes sweeping action that has massive implications for legislation that has been passed in a form that the legislatures involved thought was valid. Some of us may remember the governments of the legislatures of Quebec and Manitoba, in particular, having to re-pass years of legislation because the Supreme Court ruled it invalid, even though those legislatures thought they were on solid ground. That is my observation.
My first clarification is this: With all deference to my colleague, the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform paid considerable attention to the constitutional implications of this bill but it did not hear all the same witnesses that appeared before this committee. The bulk of the evidence now ends up a little different but the Senate Reform Committee did pay attention to the constitutionality from some eminent witnesses.
My second clarification is: Going back to the chairman's question about the application of the rule, the best procedural advice I have is that if we adopt this recommendation as it is written, which says that we recommend that the bill not be proceeded with at third reading until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled with respect to its constitutionality, the bill would not proceed to third reading and it would not appear on the Order Paper from that moment but it would not be dead. If you will, it would be held in abeyance and could be brought back and reinstated at third reading on the motion of any senator once the Supreme Court had ruled that it was constitutionally valid, if the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutionally valid.
The Chairman: Does the Senate not need to adopt the report of a committee because it is the Senate that speaks, not the committee.
Senator Fraser: Yes, that is if the Senate were to adopt this report; you are right. It would not mean that the bill would die, and that is the key point I was trying to make.
Third, with regard to my position in the light of remarks by Senator Andreychuk and Senator Tkachuk, I share the view that it is important for this Senate to retain, to the extent possible, mastery of its own destiny. I believe that profoundly. Therefore, I believe that it is highly desirable that this bill be acceptable under section 44. My view is that the bill, as amended, is acceptable under section 44. In this, I may differ from some of my colleagues but that proves the point. I am not a lawyer but I have listened to many lawyers and have read a lot of material on this matter. I want this bill, as amended, to be acceptable under section 44 for the reasons outlined by Senator Andreychuk. However, there has been sufficient, sophisticated questioning of the concept such that I also want it to be clear. I do not want to kill this bill. I do not consider that voting to accept this recommendation in committee and in the Senate would constitute killing this bill. If I thought that the amendment did that, I would not vote that way.
Senator Tkachuk: The government could take the original bill to the Supreme Court to ask for a ruling on the constitutionality, could it not? It is not required to take the bill, as amended.
The Chairman: The executive can do what it wants to do. The Attorney General can do what the Attorney General wishes with respect to a reference, and it can be in any form.
Senator Tkachuk: If the original bill were found to be constitutional, then members opposite would agree with the bill. Is that right?
Senator Fraser: We would then need to consider whether it is a good bill.
The Chairman: They would still have the argument as to the length of tenure of 8, 9, 10 or 15 years.
Senator Tkachuk: I wanted to know that. Has this letter that you received from —
The Chairman: It was circulated to all senators.
Senator Tkachuk: Is the Peter Hogg letter a part of the record?
The Chairman: Yes, it is, in the same way that all the letters from the provinces are a part of the record.
Senator Tkachuk: Is it an attachment to the record?
Senator Baker: The chair did that at the beginning of our meeting.
The Chairman: The letter from Peter Hogg was received yesterday and was sent to committee members by the clerk yesterday along with the letters we received from the provinces when they arrived.
Senator Tkachuk: I had better read a portion of the letter, at page 2, because of what Senator Bryden had said. Professor Hogg says:
Bills S-4 and C-43 were introduced separately, and so far as I am aware it has never been suggested by members of the government that the passage of Bill S-4 was contingent on the passage of Bill C-43. Indeed, since the government is in a minority position, it is in no position, even in the House of Commons, to ensure that both bills are enacted into law. If Bill S-4 passed and Bill C-43 did not, obviously a court would have no choice but to judge the validity of Bill S-4 on its own merits. Even if both bills were to pass, it seems to me to be unlikely that a court would judge the validity of Bill S-4 only as part of a package that includes Bill C-43. In my opinion, a court would judge the validity of Bill S-4 as a measure that imposes fixed terms on Senators. On that basis, in my opinion, Bill S-4 can be enacted by the Parliament of Canada under s. 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Of course, as you all know, this letter was in response to the submissions. I do not agree with you, senator, that the preponderance of evidence shows that what I would call "outstanding constitutional scholars" agree that Bill S-4 is constitutional. That was clear in the first report and that evidence is part of the total report. You were a member of that committee, which recommended that the bill proceed.
I wanted that on the written record so that people can reference it when they look at this issue years from now. I will make sure they read what Professor Hogg had written.
Senator Bryden: I have a supplementary question on Professor Hogg's letter. Professor Hogg also commented on the finding of the Supreme Court in Re: Authority of Parliament in relation to the Upper House. This was a clear statement of his findings.
He wrote a paper, which stated:
Does the federal Parliament have the power to abolish the Senate? The Supreme Court of Canada in the Upper House reference (1979) has just said no. I think the answer should have been yes. This comment will attempt to explain the decision and to criticize it.
He was wrong then, and he is wrong now. He took a different position than the court. The court ruled, and that is where we are.
Senator Stratton: We can have a referendum.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are close to the time when I want to put the question to honourable senators. My only concern is that normally a bill is reported to a committee by the Senate, the committee has an order of reference, they hear witnesses and they reach a conclusion. In the conclusion, they either report the bill with amendments or without amendments. We are trying to do things other than that, and Senator Baker said this is unique. Marleau-Montpetit states on page 659, under "Report to the House":
The committee is bound by its Order of Reference — the bill — and may only report the bill with or without amendment to the House. Consequently, the committee may not include substantive recommendations in its report. On several occasions in the House, the Speaker has ruled a report containing recommendations or a motion to adopt a report containing recommendations out of order.
I only raise that, honourable senators. I am not wedded to that comment, but I raise it to say that I hope this committee is doing what it legally has the power to do, with this recommendation that Senator Milne has brought forward. I will read it again:
That the bill as amended carry with the following recommendation to be included in the committee's report.
That the bill as amended, not be proceeded with at third reading until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled with respect to its constitutionality.
I do not have an opinion, but I say to honourable senators, are you certain that you have the jurisdiction and the power to do what this recommendation purports to do?
Senator Rompkey: I want to draw on House of Commons experience. I have chaired House of Commons committees, as I have Senate committees.
The Chairman: I have never been in the House of Commons.
Senator Rompkey: I realize that. It is much better here. I only wanted to comment on the reference you made. I can recall numerous occasions where recommendations were made, and minority reports were submitted by different parties, and I think that has happened in the Senate, too. Clearly, in my experience, it happened in the House of Commons.
The Chairman: Was that on a bill or on a report?
Senator Tkachuk: On a report, yes, but not on a bill.
Senator Rompkey: This is a bill.
Senator Andreychuk: Clearly, in the House of Commons, minority reports are recognized. Clearly, in the Senate, they are not.
Senator Rompkey: I have added minority reports. I am saying that recommendations have been made as well, and they have been made in the Senate.
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
The Chairman: Do other honourable senators want to speak, or are you ready for the question?
Senator Andreychuk: If you follow our Rules of the Senate, what you are doing contradicts our rules. Rule 100 talks about reporting against the bill. It simply says:
When a committee to which a bill has been referred considers that the bill should not be proceeded with further in the Senate, it shall so report to the Senate, stating its reasons. If the motion for the adoption of the report is carried, the bill shall not reappear the Order Paper.
Go to rule 101, where it talks about how the chair must sign an amended bill.
What you are trying to do is what could happen in third reading, and I think you are pre-empting it. My question is this: Where does this bill end up if we say that we should not proceed with it? We have amended it. We will put it on the floor of the house as amended, which clearly our recommendation says you cannot do. You must follow the Senate rules, and I can follow it through and give you my legal procedures, but I do not think we have time for that. I think you have to choose one or the other, but when you try to do both, where is the bill? Is it suspended somewhere?
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: Where? Who has an ability to get at it? Would it be the committee again, or is it the Senate?
Senator Rompkey: We have had a number of occasions where bills have been suspended in the Senate if they are referred to a committee before second reading. Sometimes that has happened. The order of the Senate is that the bill be suspended until such time as the committee has heard it. That has happened a number of times.
Senator Tkachuk: It stays on the Order Paper.
Senator Rompkey: No, it does not stay on the Order Paper.
Senator Andreychuk: Here we have gone one more step. We have gone through the bill. We are not only at a procedural point. We actually took ownership of that bill. We went through a process. If we follow the process through, we are supposed to report the bill as amended, or we can hold it here and recommend a report, which we have done sometimes. We have held a bill for further clarification of the House, et cetera. We are trying to work the rules in a different way. Show me the rule that allows us to do that. It does not exist.
Senator Milne: The committee is not recommending that the Senate not proceed with Bill S-4, period, which of course would kill the bill. We are saying, "Do not proceed until something further happens," and that "something further" is the Supreme Court reference ruling.
Senator Rompkey: The key word is "until."
Senator Baker: Rule 100 gives a committee the power to kill a bill or make the bill finished.
Senator Andreychuk: Exactly.
Senator Baker: However, rule 100 says —
Senator Milne: It does not apply to this.
Senator Baker: — that when you do that, you must, to use the exact words, "report to the Senate." When you report to the Senate, it becomes a subject that is before the Senate in a report.
With that logic, we could have turned around here, if we wished, and defeated the bill. According to rule 100, it would then form part of a report to the Senate. What we are doing is giving a report to the Senate, as we must do, but in the report we are not killing the bill. We are recommending that the Senate consider not proceeding to third reading with the bill but that it be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, without saying how it arrives there.
In other words, the authority under rule 100 is to allow this committee to take the ultimate step to eradicate the bill totally, but that is referenced to the Senate. We cannot do that alone without reporting that to the Senate, and it becomes the subject of the consideration of the Senate. We are not going that far. We are simply recommending something else — not killing it. We must report to the Senate, as rule 100 states. It is at that point that the Senate will make the final adjudication.
Senator Tkachuk: Question: Call the question.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, when I asked, "Shall the bill carry," Senator Milne moved:
That the bill as amended carry with the following recommendation to be included in the committee's report:
That the bill, as amended, not be proceeded with at third reading until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled with respect to its constitutionality.
Do you agree with the motion in amendment, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Stratton: On division.
The Chairman: On division?
Senator Tkachuk: This is the report?
Senator Stratton: No, now it is the report.
The Chairman: This is on the amendment.
Senator Stratton: Yes, I realize that, but we are on the report now.
The Chairman: Yes, shall the bill carry as amended? Carried?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
Senator Milne: We have observations that we would like included in the report.
The Chairman: They come after the bill. Shall the bill carry, as amended?
Senator Stratton: I would like a recorded vote of each and every individual senator with respect to this vote.
Senator Robichaud: Which vote?
Senator Tkachuk: The final one, as amended by Senator Milne, right?
Senator Milne: Yes.
The Chairman: I am putting the question: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Moore: With the recommendations?
The Chairman: That is included. That was passed.
Senator Tkachuk: Is the recommendation part of it?
Senator Baker: Yes. Shall it now pass?
The Chairman: Senator Moore, we passed that already.
Senator Moore: I want to make sure it is included.
The Chairman: It is included.
Senator Milne: The bill with amendments and recommendations.
The Chairman: We have been asked for a roll-call vote, so I will ask the clerk to do the roll call on the vote.
The question is: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Senator Milne: The bill as amended with the recommendation.
The Chairman: Okay — with this recommendation, carry?
Senator Tkachuk: The recommendation was carried on division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Will you do the roll call, please? Senator Tkachuk called for it.
Senator Robichaud: It was Senator Stratton.
Senator Stratton: Yes, it was Senator Stratton. I like Senator Tkachuk but I am not that much of a fan.
Senator Tkachuk: Our name sounds so much the name.
The Chairman: The clerk will do the roll call.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: Senator Oliver?
The Chairman: I will not vote.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Andreychuk?
Senator Andreychuk: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Baker?
Senator Baker: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Bryden?
Senator Bryden: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Moore?
Senator Moore: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Rompkey?
Senator Rompkey: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
Senator Milne: Do not forget me.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Milne?
Senator Milne: Agreed.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Hervieux-Payette?
Senator Stratton: Normally, if I may on a point of order —
The Chairman: She is ex officio and has the right to vote.
Senator Stratton: I understand that. You are not voting, senator?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I will not disturb the members of the committee.
Senator Stratton: There is a tradition that you do not vote.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I will abstain but you know where we vote.
The Chairman: Can I ask the clerk to give a report on the roll call, please?
Ms. Anwar: Yeas—8; nays—3. The motion is carried.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Senator Milne: I move that we attach observations to this report.
The Chairman: Do you mind if the chair puts the normal question?
Senator Milne: Okay.
The Chairman: There is a proper way of doing things.
Does the committee wish to discuss the appending observations to the report?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: Do you want to have a vote?
Senator Milne: Yes, definitely.
The Chairman: All right. We will have a roll call vote?
Senator Stratton: Yes.
The Chairman: Do honourable senators wish to have the observations appended to the report?
Ms. Anwar: Senator Andreychuk?
Senator Andreychuk: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Baker?
Senator Baker: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Bryden?
Senator Bryden: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Moore?
Senator Moore: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Rompkey?
Senator Rompkey: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Milne?
Senator Milne: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: No.
The Chairman: Will you give a report, please?
Ms. Anwar: Yeas—7; nays—3. The motion is carried.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Honourable senators, rule 92(2)(f) of the Rules of the Senate of Canada allows us to go in camera to discuss a draft report or observations. Does the committee wish to discuss the observations publicly or in camera?
Senator Stratton: Publicly.
Senator Tkachuk: Publicly.
The Chairman: Publicly, all right.
Will we receive copies of the observations, Senator Milne?
Senator Milne: Yes, I believe the clerk has the observations in both languages.
Senator Andreychuk: We have violated a ruling. When Bill C-2 was before this committee, there were 49 pages of observations on the content of the bill. We requested vigorously that the opposition not break the tradition that observations had grown up rather informally and usually were observations of the committee asking the government to look at some aspects or other about the machinery of the operation of bills or how to implement the bills. Nonetheless, they were facilitating observations on behalf of the committee. They have never been used before Bill C-2 as a weapon against a minority. The majority used another tool. They have the tool of voting but they used the observations, thereby breaking the traditions and breaking the rules.
Senator Baker: — tyranny.
Senator Andreychuk: Yes, tyranny of the majority. Thank you, Senator Baker, for putting that on the record, but I would like to find a better word.
Senator Tkachuk: That is a good word.
Senator Andreychuk: At the time, I was shocked and disappointed in my colleagues for doing so and put it on the record. I then went to the chamber and asked for a motion that would refer the matter to the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. At the time, I was made aware of a ruling in 2002. We should still be bound by that ruling and consequently did not proceed with that inquiry. It should not be opinions of any individual member; it should not be opinions of the majority; and it should not be about the content. It has never been intended to have those observations. Observations have grown informally.
This is the second time — and I have looked at it quickly — they are making the case for the government. I look at the names that are pointed out here — not balanced. It is the witnesses that support the majority point of view. With respect, I plead with my colleagues, in the interests of fairness, justice and the Senate and its precedents that you withdraw these observations. You have enough tools in your tool kit to have your way. This hammer over the head of the minority is unnecessary, inappropriate and contrary to our rules. I appeal to my colleagues not to do this a second time. This taints the Senate's atmosphere and it taints our operations.
Observations have been from both sides. Observations have been put together with the chair, with the steering committee and with the consensus. When we have not had that consensus, we have backed off the observations. You have every right to make your case again at third reading. You have every right to make your case again on the subject matter of the report. Do you really need to do this?
The Chairman: I have on my list Senator Milne, Senator Rompkey and Senator Bryden.
Senator Milne: No, I did not have my name on the list.
Senator Rompkey: On the question of observations, I want to refer to past experience. I will mention one that I recall, namely, Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, the Newfoundland Education Act. I recall that we attached observations and they were fulsome. I can recall other occasions, too, but that one comes to my mind. There is precedent for doing this.
However customs arrive by precedent. Doing things over and over again become not only a habit, but a modus operandi. I recall that for honourable senators. There have been instances in the past when I first arrived in the Senate. That was 10 years ago, because I have not been here 15 years yet.
Senator Tkachuk: We have all agreed on those observations.
Senator Rompkey: No.
Senator Tkachuk: Oh, yes.
Senator Bryden: There have been ones where we have all agreed; but there are also ones that were contentious — a lot more contentious than this bill. There were massive observations on the Pearson airport bill.
Senator Tkachuk: A majority report and a minority report.
Senator Bryden: No.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Bryden: No, that was the inquiry we did on the bill. Remember, there was a Pearson airport bill?
Senator Stratton: Yes.
Senator Bryden: There were massive observations by the Senate on that bill. I suggest that it is easy enough to check; that would be in the records. If you want a precedent for where observation was used as a hammer, look at that one.
Senator Tkachuk: You know what this is.
Senator Baker: To add to what Senator Andreychuk has said, she attributed the words "tyranny of the majority" to me a minute ago. Actually, the words are from Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1800s, in his book Democracy in America.
Senator Andreychuk: I read it every night.
Senator Baker: I am sure that when the honourable senator, and former judge, Senator Andreychuk has a good read of these observations, she will come to the conclusion that we came to, namely, that they are judicial and impartial.
Senator Robichaud: And fair.
Senator Fraser: I think it is appropriate, when a committee has contemplated something as important as a constitutional change, to give an explanation of how it arrived at where it arrived, intellectually. I think if you read these observations, some effort has been expended to try to keep them —
The Chairman: Balanced?
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Please.
Senator Fraser: And to try to keep them on a serious, intellectual level.
Senator Tkachuk: Please.
Senator Fraser: Not partisan: I am telling you the truth here; some effort has been expended on that.
Senator Tkachuk: We were included in the process.
The Chairman: I have not read a word of it yet, so —
Senator Tkachuk: Free speech.
Senator Fraser: I would really like it if we could confine our discussions to whether people would like to make changes to the observations.
Senator Stratton: Question.
Senator Tkachuk: Question.
Senator Fraser: If the members on the government side do not even wish to read them, then that is difficult.
Senator Tkachuk: No, we were not part of the process.
Senator Andreychuk: A point of order or a point of privilege: When the conclusion starts with, "The overwhelming weight of testimony that our committee heard supported the conclusion that there are significant constitutional concerns . . . ," with respect, I cannot agree. If you will agree to start by saying, "There were some constitutional concerns, but the overwhelming weight of evidence proved that it was constitutional," I could accept it.
Senator Fraser: I would not think so.
Senator Stratton: Question.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the question has been called for: Shall I report the bill as amended with a recommendation and observations?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Stratton: One point. I want a recorded individual vote.
The Chairman: Can you do a roll call, please?
Ms. Anwar: Senator Andreychuk?
Senator Andreychuk: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Baker?
Senator Baker: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Bryden?
Senator Bryden: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Milne?
Senator Milne: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Moore?
Senator Moore: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Rompkey?
Senator Rompkey: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas, seven; nays four.
The Chairman: The motion is carried. The bill shall be reported as amended with observations and recommendations.
Is there any further business to come before the committee, honourable senators?
The committee adjourned.