Journals of the Senate
49 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2000, Canada
Journals of the Senate
2nd Session, 36th Parliament
Issue 34
Wednesday, March 1, 2000
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Beaudoin, Berntson, Boudreau, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cogger, Cohen, Cook, Cools, Corbin, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Fairbairn, Finestone, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Grimard, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kelly, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Kirby, Kolber, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Mercier, Milne, Molgat, Moore, Murray, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Perrault, Poy, Prud'homme, Roberge, Roche, Rossiter, Ruck, Sibbeston, Simard, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Watt, Wilson
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Beaudoin, Berntson, Boudreau, *Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cogger, Cohen, *Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, *De Bané, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Fairbairn, Finestone, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Grimard, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kelly, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Kirby, Kolber, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, *Meighen, Mercier, Milne, Molgat, Moore, Murray, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Perrault, *Perry (Poirier), Poy, Prud'homme, Roberge, *Robertson, *Robichaud, (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Roche, Rossiter, Ruck, Sibbeston, Simard, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Watt, Wilson
PRAYERS
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Documents
The Honourable Senator Hays tabled the following:2000-2001 Estimates, Parts 1 and II: The Government Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates.-Sessional Paper No. 2/36-278.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
SPEAKER'S RULING
On Tuesday, February 22, as we reached the Orders of the Day, Senator Taylor raised a point of order regarding certain words that had been used by Senator Angus during Question Period.The following day, Senator Gauthier was given leave to continue the debate at my request, since I was not in the Chair the day before and wanted to hear the opinions of the honourable senators.
I thank all those senators who took part in this most interesting debate. Faced with a question that might appear quite simple, I wondered exactly what authority the Speaker of the Senate has over such a question.
I remind honourable senators that the position of the Speaker in this place is very different from that of the Speaker in the other place. The practice and long-established custom is that senators regulate themselves, and that the Speaker has a limited responsibility insofar as interfering. I will admit the rule does provide, in case of serious conditions, that the Speaker can interfere, but normally that rule is not followed.
Also, I should like to remind honourable senators of the rule indicating when points of order can be presented. This issue was raised at that time because Senator Taylor had stood up earlier while we were still in Question Period. The practice that we have followed is as the rule states, that there are no points of order or questions of privilege during Question Period and Routine Business, and that normally, we will entertain them only after the Speaker has called Orders of the Day. Once Orders of the Day have been called, it is proper to come forward with either points of order or questions of privilege, unless it is a case where notice was given by letter previously. I should like to have that established as a clear practice so that there will be no difficulties.
I come back to the points that were raised. I will read directly from the Debates of the Senate. The objections raised by Honourable Senator Taylor and Honourable Senator Gauthier were to statements made by Honourable Senator Angus. I refer to page 671, where Senator Angus is reported to have said:
On page 672, Senator Angus said:...after Minister Stewart had been caught with her hand in the cookie jar.
Instead of integrity, we have seen a minister and a Prime Minister misleading the public day after day.
I should like to refer honourable senators to Beauchesne's. I point out that this whole question of unparliamentary language is not necessarily as simple as it may appear. I refer honourable senators to paragraph 486(1), which states:
It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to whom the words are addressed, as, whether that person is a public officer, or a private Member not in office, or whether the words are meant to be applied to public conduct or to private character; and sometimes upon the degree of provocation, which the Member speaking had received from the person alluded to; and all these considerations must be attended to at the moment, as they are infinitely various and cannot possibly be foreseen in such a manner that precise rules can be adopted with respect to them.
(2) An expression which is deemed to be unparliamentary today does not necessarily have to be deemed unparliamentary next week.
(3) There are few words that have been judged to be unparliamentary consistently, and any list of unparliamentary words is only a compilation of words that at some time have been found to cause disorder in the House.
I wish as well to quote from what is the newest book on parliamentary practice. It is entitled House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I am most conscious that the practice and procedures of the House of Commons do not regulate ours. However, when ours are silent, we do use theirs. This latest book, written by the present Clerk and the Assistant Clerk of the House of Commons, states at page 526:
With that background, honourable senators will see that making a precise determination is not the easiest thing to do. I remind honourable senators again as to the custom and practices of this house. We are members of a house which always has taken the position that we be polite to each other. We treat each other with respect. We address each other as individuals, and I refer to each honourable senator by name. It is a very different context from that in the House of Commons. One has only to compare the Question Period in the other place with the Question Period in this place to see that. I make no criticism in that regard. They are a different house. We must remain ever conscious of the language that we use and that that language should always be respectful of each other.The codification of unparliamentary language has proven impractical as it is the context in which words or phrases are used that the Chair must consider when deciding whether or not they should be withdrawn.
The specific words that were used, namely, having one's "hand in the cookie jar," may not be a very polite description of one's activities. It may not be the best wording that could be used. However, it can always be interpreted as meaning a slight misdemeanour, someone who has been caught doing something that they ought not to have done. It is not necessarily dishonest. I think there are different ways of interpreting that phrase.
However, when I come to the next statement, I must confess that I am somewhat more disturbed, in particular, given that earlier Senator Angus is reported to have said:
The cover-up is not working, honourable senators.
He then said:
If honourable senators will refer again to Beauchesne's, they will find that the word "misleading" as mentioned in paragraph 489 has been ruled unparliamentary on many occasions under the following headings: attempted to misrepresent, deliberately misled, deliberately misleading, misled and misleading the public. However, to confuse the issue, paragraph 490 sets out words that have been ruled parliamentary. Under that paragraph, we find the words "misleading" and "misled". There is no clear rule.Instead of integrity, we have seen a minister and a Prime Minister misleading the public day after day.
I return to my comment that it is important in this house that we treat each other with respect. It is equally important when we speak to persons outside this house, particularly those who cannot respond, that we treat them with respect. I have also been told about some of the statements that have been made about senators by people in the other place. That should not affect the way in which we function in this chamber.
Having said that, honourable senators, the rules indicate that as Speaker I have no authority in this matter. I do not have, as the House of Commons has, the authority to name a senator. If I did take that authority, I would have no means of enforcing it. It is up to the chamber.
Honourable senators, I can only say to you that it is up to each of us to make a determination in regard to such matters. Accusing a member of the other place of deliberately misleading is not a term that we should use.
Perhaps a discussion that took place in the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia might give some insight into the problem. There, Mr. MacLellan, from the opposition, said after an honourable minister had spoken, "Mr. Speaker, I hope the next time the Minister of Health goes to see Ravine, he does not leave until he comes out of hypnosis." The Speaker replied, "Order, please. Not only was it unparliamentary, but it was not nice." The Speaker then added, "I know the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party wants to retract." Mr. MacLellan stated, "I do not mind being unparliamentary, but I certainly do not want to not be nice. You really hit me in a soft spot."
I leave it to Senator Angus.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting. Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Nolin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, for the second reading of Bill S-4, An Act to provide for judicial preauthorization of requests to be made to a foreign or international authority or organization for a search or seizure outside Canada.After debate, The Honourable Senator Hays moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Commons Public Bills
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.Reports of Committees
Orders No. 1 to 5 were called and postponed until the next sitting.Other
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Atkins calling the attention of the Senate to the financing of post-secondary education in Canada and particularly that portion of the financing that is borne by students, with a view to developing policies that will address and alleviate the debt load which post-secondary students are being burdened with in Canada.After debate, The Honourable Senator Hays moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Austin, P.C., that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. Orders No. 16, 13 (inquiries) and 7 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting. Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Spivak, seconded by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources begin immediately a review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as unanimously recommended in the Committee's Seventh Report dated September 8, 1999, and tabled in the Senate the following day.
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. Orders No. 9, 6, 12, 1 (inquiries) and 4 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting. Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Kinsella calling the attention of the Senate to human rights and multi-ethnic conflicts.
Debate concluded.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Hays moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:That the Clerk of the Senate be authorized to pay the travel expenses of Mr. Wesley Cragg and Ms. Bronwyn Best of Transparency International Canada, who appeared before the Committee of the Whole on December 3, 1998, during its study of Bill S-21, An Act respecting the corruption of foreign public officials and the implementation of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, and to make related amendments to other Acts.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. The Honourable Senator Austin, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples have power to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of its examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
Pursuant to the Order adopted by the Senate yesterday, the Senate adjourned.__________________________________________
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Joint Committee on Official LanguagesThe name of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Robichaud (L'Acadie-Acadia) (February 29).
The name of the Honourable Senator Finestone added to the membership (February 29).
Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce
The name of the Honourable Senator Cook substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Kroft (February 29).
Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications
The name of the Honourable Senator Taylor substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Poulin (March 1).