Journals of the Senate
46 Elizabeth II, A.D. 1997, Canada
Journals of the Senate
Issue 77
Wednesday, March 5, 1997
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Anderson Andreychuk Atkins Bacon Bolduc Bonnell Bosa Bryden Carstairs Charbonneau Cogger Cools Corbin De Bané DeWare Di Nino Doody Doyle Fairbairn Forest Gigantès Graham Grimard Gustafson Haidasz Hays Hébert Kelly Kenny Keon Kinsella Kolber Lavoie-Roux LeBreton Lewis Lucier Lynch-Staunton MacDonald (Halifax) Maheu Marchand Mercier Molgat Murray Nolin Pearson Perrault Petten Poulin Prud'homme Rivest Roberge Robertson Rossiter Simard Sparrow Spivak Stanbury Stewart Stollery Taylor Tkachuk
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Kenny presented the following:
WEDNESDAY, March 5, 1997
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its
SIXTEENTH REPORT
Your Committee has examined and approved the following supplementary budget presented to it by the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce for the proposed expenditures of the said Committee with respect to its study of Bill C-70 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997:
| Professional and Special Services | $ 25,100 |
|
Transportation and Communications |
79,868 |
| Other Expenditures | 5,500 |
| Total | $ 110,468 |
Respectfully submitted,
COLIN KENNY
Chairman
The Honourable Senator Kenny moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lewis, that the Report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Honourable Senator Gustafson presented the following:
WEDNESDAY, March 5, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, has the honour to present its
FOURTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred the Bill C-60, an Act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other Acts as a consequence, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, February 18, 1997, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment but with the following observations and recommendations, which reflect concerns raised by some witnesses and Committee members.
Bill C-60 is enabling legislation that would allow the creation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency; however, inadequate details have been provided in the bill concerning key elements of the proposed Agency, especially with respect to financing. The Committee was told that a long-term corporate business plan would be tabled in each House of Parliament as soon as possible after the Agency is established. However, this timing is unacceptable. The Committee had requested that a business plan be provided to it; nevertheless, the documentation subsequently provided reflected information already contained in the1997-98 Estimates of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and provided no additional details. Moreover, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture also expressed concern about the lack of a business plan with costs and revenue projections, and urged industry consultations in the formulation of the proposed Agency`s business plan and budget. Given that the Committee is passing the bill without the benefit of the business plan, we recommend that the proposed Agency's President and Executive Vice-President appear before the Committee once the business plan has been tabled, in order to provide answers to outstanding questions.
Consultations are important for industry representatives, since they would be stakeholders in the proposed Agency and would be required to pay user fees. The issue of cost recovery is of critical importance to agricultural producers and processors. Certainly, the extent to which our producers and processors will have to incur such costs will affect their international competitiveness. This remains a concern of the Committee despite the fact that we were informed that no new cost recovery initiatives would occur until the year 2000. Moreover, the Committee notes that no assessment of the total cost recovery moneys paid by the agricultural sector has occurred. In the absence of such an analysis, it is difficult to ensure that our producers and processors are not being placed at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. The Committee recommends that such an analysis be undertaken as soon as possible.
Finally, concerns were raised about accountability. The proposed Agency would be a new structure, and this fact creates anxiety for some. Moreover, while the bill specifies the maximum size of the proposed Advisory Board and notes that the proposed Board would advise the Minister on any matter within the responsibilities of the proposed Agency, the bill is silent on key issues. In particular, it would appear that there would be no requirement that the proposed Board be representative, and greater details on its specific mandate would have been helpful. While such information may be included in regulations, the Committee notes that draft versions of these have not been provided. The Committee recommends clarity on these issues, and the release of draft regulations, as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
LEONARD J. GUSTAFSON
Chair
The Honourable Senator Graham moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Taylor, that the Bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a third reading at the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations
The Honourable Senator Maheu tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Section of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the XXVIIth Annual Meeting held in Ottawa, Vancouver and Victoria from October 9 to 16, 1996.-Sessional PaperNo. 2/35-593.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Taylor, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marchand, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-23, An Act to establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Taylor moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mercier, that the Bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Order was called for the third reading of Bill C-29, An Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.
SPEAKER'S RULING
Yesterday, after I had called "Orders of the Day", Senator Kinsella rose on a point of order to object to the course of certain events that had occurred during Routine Proceedings. It is his contention that the order of the Senate setting the consideration for third reading of Bill C-29 "at the next sitting of the Senate" is out of order. He based his position on the fact that the Senate had adopted a motion on February 4 ordering the Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to prepare an interim report related to Bill C-29 for the purpose of answering several questions. Using references to the practices of the National Finance Committee and its consideration of the Estimates, Senator Kinsella argued that, from a procedural point of view, there should be an examination of the interim report before debate proceeds to the third reading of Bill C-29. According to Senator Kinsella, "unless we are to rescind the order made by this House on February 4, 1997... we must first proceed with an examination of the interim report, and then with an examination of the report of the committee on the bill itself."
Although I suggested that I did not believe it was the appropriate time to raise the point of order according to my understanding of rule 23(1), I allowed debate to continue and invited other Senators to submit their arguments. The Deputy Leader of the Government, Senator Graham, challenged Senator Kinsella's position and maintained that there was no procedural link between the interim report and the report on the bill. As he explained, the terms of the resolution of February 4 were met by the presentation of the interim report, a position subsequently endorsed by Senator Kenny. Senator Graham went on to state that with respect to the report on the bill, as it was presented without amendment, it was deemed adopted and a motion was carried to have the item placed on the Order Paper for third reading consideration at the next sitting.
The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Lynch-Staunton, urged that we look to the intent behind the motion of February 4. From this perspective, he said, the case is very clear. "It was to give this chamber" as he stated, "guidance on three key questions relating to the subject-matter of the bill in order to help the Senate, in debating the interim report, to have a better understanding of the issues involved." However, by reversing the order, by allowing the third reading debate to proceed, before debate on the interim report, he claimed that the Senate would be contravening the intent of the February 4 motion. This position was also supported by Senator Nolin.
I want to thank Honourable Senators for the arguments that were presented. Based on what was said, I fully appreciate the different positions that have been taken on this matter.
First of all, I want to address the issue of when this point of order should be raised. Rule 23(1) states in part that:
Any question of privilege or point of order to be raised in relation to any notice given during this time [of Routine Proceedings] can only be raised at the time the Order is first called for the consideration by the Senate.
Thus, the first appropriate opportunity to raise this point of order as to whether it is procedurally acceptable to proceed to third reading of Bill C-29 would be when that item is actually called the first time. The reason behind this rule, as I perceive it, is that points of order should be anchored to the proceeding that is being questioned, in this case the third reading of Bill C-29. Be that as it may, the Senate seemed disposed to hear the point of order raised by Senator Kinsella and so I decided to allow the arguments to be made despite the clear intent of rule 23(1). Let it be understood, however, that this should not be construed as a precedent. Unless the Senate decides to change the rule, I feel bound to apply it when required to do so.
As to the substance of the point of order, the dispute revolves around the difference in the interpretation of the motion adopted February 4. The relevant portion of the motion states:
That, notwithstanding rule 98, the Standing Senate Com mittee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources present an interim report, before submitting its final report on Bill C-29...
On the one hand, it has been proposed that I follow the example of the courts when confronted with ambiguous language in the law and go behind the intent of the motion. On the other hand, I am advised that this is unnecessary since the language of the motion is clear and straightforward. In this particular case, I am inclined to agree that the terms of the motion are not particularly ambiguous or open to interpretation. The motion simply authorized the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to present an interim report before presenting its report on Bill C-29 and this is what has happened. The motion did not stipulate or suggest in any way what subsequent action was to be taken after these reports were presented. The motion provides no indication at all that one report was to be debated before the other. If the language of the motion had even suggested any follow up proceeding beyond the presentation of the reports, I would have considered the point of order differently. In this case, however, it is unnecessary to follow the cited example of courts since there is nothing ambiguous in the terms of the motion. Were I to do so, I believe I would be exceeding my authority as Speaker.
Accordingly, I rule that the order for the third reading onBill C-29 is properly before the Senate and that it will be in order to move the appropriate motion when the order is called later this day.
Whereupon, the Speaker's Ruling was appealed.
The question being put on whether the Speaker's Ruling shall be sustained, it was adopted on the following division:
YEAS
The Honourable Senators
Anderson Bacon Bonnell Bosa Bryden Carstairs Cools Corbin De Bané Fairbairn Forest Gigantès Graham Haidasz Hays Hébert Kenny Kolber Lewis Lucier Maheu Marchand Mercier Molgat Pearson Perrault Petten Poulin Prud'homme Sparrow Stanbury Stewart Stollery Taylor-34
NAYS
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk Atkins Bolduc Cogger DeWare Di Nino Doody Doyle Grimard Gustafson Keon Kinsella Lavoie-Roux LeBreton Lynch-Staunton MacDonald (Halifax) Murray Nolin Roberge Robertson Rossiter Tkachuk-22
ABSTENTIONS
The Honourable Senators
Nil
Third reading of Bill C-29, An Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.
The Honourable Senator Kenny moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stewart, that the Bill be read the third time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
___________________________________
With leave,The Senate reverted to Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees.
The Honourable Senator Kenny presented the following:
WEDNESDAY, March 5, 1997
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its
SEVENTEENTH REPORT
Your Committee has examined and approved the following budget presented to it by the Special Committee of the Senate on the Cape Breton Development Corporation for the proposed expenditures of the said Committee, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, with respect to its study as authorized by the Senate on February 11, 1997:
| Professional and Special Services | $16,500 |
| Transportation and Communications | 42,885 |
| Other Expenditures | 2,000 |
| Total | $61,385 |
Respectfully submitted,
COLIN KENNY
Chairman
The Honourable Senator Kenny moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stewart, that the Report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
___________________________________
Ordered, That all remaining Orders be postponed until the next sitting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Graham moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lucier:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
___________________________________
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
The names of the Honourable Senators Stanbury, Bosa and Kenny substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Pearson, Landry and Riel (March 4).
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The name of the Honourable Senator Bosa substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Moore (March 5).