The Fourteenth Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament contains four recommendations that address proposals made by individual Senators relating to the operational effectiveness of Senate committees and the effectiveness of the Senate committee system.

The recommendations set out in this report supplement those provided in the Eleventh Report of this Committee, in providing for incremental improvements to the Senate committee system in order to enhance the Senate's performance of its fundamental roles. They would increase the impact of committee reports, strengthen the role of the Senate concerning official languages, and define new committee roles relating to petitions and secession referendum questions.

In combination, these recommendations would strengthen the role of the Senate as a chamber of representation, complementary to the House of Commons, and help to ensure that the potential contribution of Senate committee reports to public discussion and policy development by the Government is fully realized.

INTRODUCTION

Several proposals of individual Senators were referred to your Committee for consideration while this study was in progress. They comprise:

(a) the May 17, 2001 motion of Senator Gauthier, as amended by Senator Lynch-Staunton, that would enable the Senate to request comprehensive Government responses to committee reports;

(b) the February 20, 2001 motion of Senator Gauthier that would establish a Senate committee on official languages; and

(c) the October 16, 2000 motion of Senator Kinsella that would provide for the expeditious consideration of secession referendum questions by Committee of the Whole.

In addition, two proposals were submitted directly to your Committee by Senators. A proposal received from Senator Gauthier would create a process for the review and, where appropriate, study of petitions. It is addressed in this report.

Preliminary consideration has also been given to a proposal, received from Senator Carney, that would remove the distinction currently made in the Minutes of Proceedings of committees between the physical attendance of Senators and their participation via video-conferencing (see Annex). In the view of your Committee, this proposal raises complex issues, including the need to take full advantage of the access opportunities created by video-conferencing technologies while minimizing potentially negative impacts on the way that committees do their work. This proposal is therefore being reserved for separate treatment in a subsequent report.

The proposals addressed in this report have been considered by your Committee in conjunction with the issues raised in its original Terms of Reference, enabling a comprehensive approach to issues relating to the committee structure of the Senate. Reflecting the existence of common themes, this report is thus presented as a sequel to your Committee's Eleventh Report, under the shared general title Modernizing the Senate From Within: Updating the Senate Committee Structure.

ISSUES AND PROPOSALS

A. Ensuring a Visible Response to Committee Reports

On May 17, 2001, the Senate referred to your Committee a motion by Senator Gauthier, as amended by Senator Lynch-Staunton, that would amend the Rules to enable the Senate, after approving a report submitted by a standing committee, to refer that report to the Government with a request for a comprehensive response by the Minister within 90 days. The purpose of the motion was to equip the Senate with a procedure, comparable to that employed by the House of Commons, that would enhance its capacity to obtain a clear and public reaction from Governments to policy studies and recommendations developed by committees.

In the course of their deliberations, members of your Committee agreed that the work of the Senate is potentially undermined by the lack of any formal means of seeking a response from the Government to policy studies, and also agreed that this problem feeds a widespread perception in the media that such studies simply gather dust after they are tabled in the Senate Chamber.

Senate studies frequently contribute to the broad processes of debate and public policy formation by virtue of the strength of their findings and recommendations. However, the absence of tangible evidence of Government attention implies an indifference to Parliament, and to the citizens it represents, that is unacceptable in a democratic system of government. As well, it impedes the capacity of committees to follow up on their work by assessing its impacts; threatens to undermine committee effectiveness by discouraging expert witnesses and Senators from making the necessary investments of time and effort; and fosters the impression that the public funds required for committee studies are not producing results.

Your Committee has considered practices established in the House of Commons and other jurisdictions, involving a procedural entitlement of committees to a formal Government response to their reports within a specified period of time. Although the quality of the responses provided by Governments varies considerably (and also varies among ministers within governments), a formal response at least provides committees and the witnesses that have appeared before them with a tangible indication that reports have been given serious attention. Responses can also provide an initial focus for follow-up study.

The Senate has no easy means to compel a minister of the Crown to respond to its reports. However, your Committee believes that the political pressures that would be associated with a public request for a response would normally be sufficient to ensure action from ministers, especially if the request is made on a committee's behalf by the Senate as a whole, and the time period is consistent with that employed by the House of Commons — 150 calendar days. Your Committee therefore recommends:

1. That the Senate adopt a procedure that would

(a) enable the Senate, following its approval of a report submitted by a select committee, to refer that report to the Government with a request for a comprehensive response within 150 calendar days; and

(b) require the Leader of the Government in the Senate to either table the Government's response within the 150 day period or provide the Senate with an explanation; and

(c) deem the report and the comprehensive response to be referred upon tabling to the select committee for review, and provide that the select committee be deemed to have been referred the matter for consideration should the 150 day period lapse without a comprehensive response being received.

(For original motion and proposed rule, see Annex, "List of Original Motions/Proposals, Recommendations and Proposed Rules.'')

B. An Official Languages Committee

In response to the motion of Senator Gauthier, adopted on February 20, 2001, your Committee has examined a proposal to create a Senate Committee on Official Languages, to allow the Senate membership on the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages to lapse, and to so advise the House of Commons.

In the course of its deliberations, your Committee was advised by current and past participants in the Joint Committee that its level of activity in recent years has been modest, although an extensive list of official languages issues continues to need attention and action. Furthermore, several Senators expressed frustration over the fact that priority issues for the French-language community have not been consistently reflected in the focus of the Joint Committee, and that English-language issues in Quebec have received minimal attention. These frustrations were supplemented by concerns that the mandate of the Joint Committee is deficient in failing to provide for the consideration of legislation, and that the contribution of Senators to the Joint Committee is routinely ignored in the media, which fosters negative public impressions of the Senate in general.

Your Committee's deliberations reflected the recognition that the existence of official language is a fundamental characteristic of Canada, enshrined in the Constitution. Official languages issues are thus priority issues for the Senate, as they ought to be for all Canadians. In view of the problems that have arisen with the Joint Committee, there was general agreement on the need for a better mechanism within the Senate for addressing official language issues, and discussion focused largely on what that mechanism might be.

Consideration was given to the respective advantages of a new committee in comparison with those of a subcommittee or informal working group. The creation of a new committee would be potentially the most effective response to the problems posed by existing arrangements, partly because it could be given a formal mandate to examine legislation. It would also provide a strong symbolic affirmation of the priority attached by the Senate to official languages issues.

However, members expressed concerns that a new committee might exacerbate structural pressures discussed in your Committee's Eleventh Report, and could involve new resource requirements. Since a subcommittee or working group performing the work of a committee could give rise to similar objections without offering the compensating advantages of a full committee, your Committee concluded that a Senate committee equipped with a comprehensive official languages mandate is the preferred mechanism for addressing the concerns that have emerged from existing arrangements.

A second issue considered by your Committee was whether the creation of a Senate official languages committee should affect Senate participation on the existing Joint Committee. The two immediately apparent options each have advantages, and significant offsetting disadvantages. One option is a new committee operating in addition to the existing Joint Committee, and potentially involving Senators additional to those continuing to serve on the Joint Committee. This option would avoid any potential repercussions of a unilateral withdrawal by one parliamentary chamber from a joint committee of Parliament, and also allow Senators to continue to work within the Joint Committee on the critically important issues included in its mandate. On the other hand, a parallel committee would exacerbate the workload and scheduling problems that your Committee has elsewhere argued are the central problem affecting the existing committee system, directly conflict with attempts to restrain the number of committees and subcommittees, and impose excessive demands on Senators desiring to participate in both official languages committees.

The contrasting option — ceasing to participate on the Joint Committee once a Senate official languages committee is established — reverses the advantages and disadvantages just outlined. It would minimize resource pressures. Indeed, a small committee of, for example, six members, would at least in theory involve less pressure on the time of Senators than the Joint Committee, for which the Rules specify nine Senate members. Perhaps more significantly, it would enable Senate resources to be focussed more effectively. Operating within a Senate committee, Senators could actively pursue the critical issues free of the counterproductive absorption of time and energy that, its members advise us, has become endemic to the Joint Committee. This option may, however, create tensions between the Senate and the House of Commons, and also preclude potentially beneficial Senate involvement in the work of the Joint Committee, although it would not preclude work with the House of Commons on an ad hoc basis.

Having weighed these considerations, your Committee has concluded that the Senate needs a committee dedicated exclusively to official language issues, in order to maximize the effectiveness of the work of Senators in this area. Concerns about resourcing implications and relations between the Senate and the House of Commons are secondary to the need for maximum effectiveness, and can be addressed, consistent with the general approach taken in other recommendations by your Committee, by (1) making specific arrangements to ensure efficiency and (2) maximizing flexibility at the level of implementation. In particular, the size of the committee should be limited to six members, and the Chair of your Committee should be authorized to meet with his House of Commons counterpart to explain and discuss the reasons behind the decision to establish a separate official languages committee. Your Committee therefore recommends:

2. That Senators support a motion to:

(a) establish a Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages, consisting of six members and mandated to consider legislation along with other duties;

(b) terminate the participation of Senators on the existing Joint Committee on Official Languages, commencing upon the adoption of this report;

(c) authorize the Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to meet with his House of Commons counterpart to discuss the reasons for the decision outlined in this motion; and

(d) send a Message to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

(For original motion and proposed Rule, see Annex, "List of Original Motions/Proposals, Recommendations and Proposed Rules'')

C. A Process for Petitions

Your Committee has considered a proposal developed by Senator Gauthier, relating to the possibility that Senate committees could enhance the effectiveness of petitions, where they represent the authentic views of citizens. Currently, petitions are presented in the Senate Chamber, and thus drawn to the attention of all Senators, but the Senate Rules do not provide for a more specific response. The Senate thus does not have a mechanism for giving recognition to the representations of citizens made in petitions, or to the Senators who convey these representations to the Chamber.

The central role of Senate committees in examining issues and policy options makes them the appropriate mechanism for receiving the representative inputs contained in petitions, and for determining whether they require a formal response such as detailed study or a policy recommendation. Where a committee determines that substantive attention is required, it could proceed with it and report findings and recommendations to the Senate. As with other studies, the resulting committee report would be considered, and debated, in the Senate Chamber. Your Committee therefore recommends:

3. That the Senate adopt a rule based on Senator Gauthier's proposal relating to petitions, setting out the requirements as to their form and content, providing for a presentation procedure and providing that the subject matter of each public petition shall be referred to the appropriate standing committee, which shall consider it and, where it believes such action to be desirable, report back to the Senate with findings and recommendations.

(For original proposal and proposed Rule, see Annex, "List of Original Motions/Proposals, Recommendations and Proposed Rules.'')

D. Considering Provincial Secession Referendum Questions

On October 16, 2000, Senator Kinsella, seconded by Senator Forrestall, moved that the Senate amend rule 26 to provide for the expeditious consideration of secession referendum questions by Committee of the Whole, upon their being tabled in a provincial legislature. The purpose of this amendment was to create a procedure that would ensure the Senate's appropriate participation in parliamentary review of the clarity of secession referendum questions and results, as provided for in the Clarity Act.⁽¹⁾ The Act requires that the House of Commons reach a determination as to the clarity of a secession referendum question within 30 days of its being tabled by a provincial government, and (subsequent to the holding of the referendum) determine whether or not there has been a clear expression of the will of a clear majority in favour of secession. Although the Senate is not given a determinative role in either of these decisions, the legislation includes the Senate among the parties whose views the House of Commons is required to take into account.

The Senate thus needs a procedure that would be appropriate to the character of the issues raised by a secession referendum, and would also enable the Senate to make its views known to the House of Commons in a timely manner. Your Committee believes that the procedure proposed in Senator Kinsella's motion would provide the basis for an effective means of meeting these needs, with the deletion of provisions requiring representations from provinces and designated groups that would normally be sought as a matter of course, but could affect the Senate's capacity to hold hearings within desired timeframes in some circumstances. Your Committee therefore recommends:

4. That, with the exception of clauses 26.1(8) to (11), the Senate adopt the substance of the October 16, 2000 motion of Senator Kinsella, seconded by Senator Forrestall, that would add a rule 26.1 to provide for the expeditious consideration of secession referendum questions or referendum results by Committee of the Whole, upon their being tabled in a provincial legislature or otherwise officially released.

(For Senator Kinsella's original motion and your Committee's proposed rule, see Annex, "List of Original Motions/Proposals, Recommendations and Proposed Rules.'')

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Your Committee wishes to express its thanks to the Senators involved in the development, presentation, and discussion in the Senate of the proposals considered in this report. While the proposals are substantively diverse, they are consistent in their reflection of broad objectives that have guided this Committee in its deliberations on the Senate committee structure and, in conjunction with recommendations made elsewhere, will contribute to the realization of a more effective Senate.

In particular, the recommendations set out above can increase the public visibility and impact on the Government of committee reports; strengthen the role of the Senate in representing official languages communities and responding to their concerns; enhance the capacity of the Senate to respond to public representations in the form of petitions; and ensure that the Senate can make a meaningful contribution to the consideration of secession referendum questions. Your Committee believes that, in combination, they can contribute to the creation of a Senate that works more effectively for Canadians, and is seen by Canadians to be more effective.

ANNEX

LIST OF ORIGINAL MOTIONS/PROPOSALS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED RULES

1. Ensuring a Visible Response to Committee Reports

Motion Referred:

That the Rules of the Senate be amended, by adding after Rule 90 the following new Rule:

90.1 Ninety days following the passage by the Senate of a select committee's report, the government shall table, at the Senate's request, a comprehensive response.

Recommendation:

That the Senate adopt a procedure that would

(a) enable the Senate, following its approval of a report submitted by a select committee, to refer that report to the Government with a request for a comprehensive response within 150 calendar days;

(b) require the Leader of the Government in the Senate to either table the Government's response within the 150 day period or provide the Senate with an explanation; and

(c) deem the report and the comprehensive response to be referred upon tabling to the select committee for review, and provide that the select committee be deemed to have been referred the matter for consideration should the 150 day period lapse without a comprehensive response being received.

Proposed Rule:

THAT the Rules of the Senate be amended in rule 131,

(a) by renumbering rule 131 as 131(1); and

(b) by adding after subsection 131(1) the following:

"Request for Government response

(2) Where the Senate adopts either a resolution or a report from a select committee, other than the report on a bill, requesting the Government to provide a full and comprehensive response to the report, the Clerk of the Senate shall communicate the request to the Government Leader in the Senate who shall, within one hundred and fifty calendar days after the adoption of the report, either table the Government's response or give an explanation for not doing so in the Senate.

(3) Where the Senate adopts a resolution or a report under subsection (2), the report of the select committee and the response of the Government or the explanation of the Government Leader for the absence of a response are deemed to be referred to the select committee one hundred and fifty calendar days after the adoption of the report.''

2. An Official Languages Committee

Motion:

That the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders examine the following proposal: That

Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Senate be amended:

1. by deleting paragraph (e);

2. by adding immediately after paragraph (q) the following new paragraph:

"The Senate Committee on Official Languages, composed of seven members, four of whom shall constitute a quorum, to which may be referred, as the Senate may decide, bills, messages, petitions, inquiries, papers and other matters relating to official languages"; and

3. by relettering the paragraphs accordingly.

That, notwithstanding Rule 85(3), the Senate membership on the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages lapse; and

That a Message be sent to the House of Commons acquainting that House thereof.

Recommendation:

That Senators support a motion to:

(a) establish a Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages, consisting of six members and mandated to consider legislation along with other duties;

(b) terminate the participation of Senators on the existing Joint Committee on Official Languages, commencing upon the adoption of this report;

(c) authorize the Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to meet with his House of Commons counterpart to discuss the reasons for the decision outlined in this motion; and

(d) send a Message to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

Proposed Rule:

THAT the Rules of the Senate be amended in rule 86:

(a) by deleting paragraph (1)(e);

(b) by re-lettering paragraphs (1)(f) to (1)(s) as (1)(e) to (1)(r) and all cross-references thereto accordingly; and

(c) by adding after paragraph (1)(s) the following:

"Official Languages

(s) The Senate Committee on Official Languages, composed of six members, four of whom shall constitute a quorum, to which may be referred, as the Senate may decide, bills, messages, petitions, inquiries, papers and other matters relating to official languages generally.''.

3. A Process for Petitions

Draft Rule Proposed to your Committee:

1. By right, everyone living in Canada can petition the Senate seeking the redress of any grievance that falls within the authority of Parliament.

2. (1) To be presented to the Senate, a public petition must first be certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions

(2) To be certified, a public petition must:

(a) be addressed to the Senate or to the Senate in Parliament assembled;

(b) contain a clear, proper and respectful request that the Senate take some action within its authority;

(c) be written, typewritten or printed on paper of usual size;

(d) be free of alterations and extraneous matter in its text;

(e) have its subject matter indicated on every sheet if it consists of more than one sheet of signatures and addresses;

(f) contain only original signatures and addresses written directly onto the public petition; and

(g) contain at least twenty-five signatures together with addresses from persons other than Senators.

3. A public petition may be presented to the Senate,

(a) at any time during the sitting of the Senate by filing it with the Clerk;

(b) during the daily Routine of Business under Petitions.

4. Every Senator who presents a public petition shall endorse it.

5. Every public petition shall be transmitted by the Clerk to the Government, which shall, within 45 days, table a response in the Senate.

Recommendation:

That the Senate adopt a rule based on Senator Gauthier's proposal relating to petitions, setting out the requirements as to their form and content, providing for a presentation procedure and providing that the subject matter of each public petition shall be referred to the appropriate standing committee, which shall consider it and, where it believes such action to be desirable, report back to the Senate with findings and recommendations.

Proposed Rule:

THAT the Rules of the Senate be amended by replacing rules 69 to 71 with the following:

"Presentation of petitions

69. (1) A Senator may present a petition to the Senate, including a petition for the passage of a private bill or for the redress of a grievance.

Senator's signature

(2) A Senator who presents a petition to the Senate must sign it as the sponsor, but the signature of the Senator is not an indication that the Senator agrees with the content of the petition.

Multiple sponsors

(3) More than one Senator may sponsor a petition.

Report attached

(4) A Senator who presents a petition for the purposes of rule 71 shall present it with the report of the Examiner of Petitions attached.

Content of petition

(5) A petition to the Senate must:

(a) be identified as a petition;

(b) be addressed to the Senate or to the Senate in Parliament assembled;

(c) respectfully request the Senate to do something that it is able to do;

(d) if it is the petition of one or more individuals, contain the original signatures of the petitioners, their names and correct addresses and the dates of their respective signatures; and

(e) if it is the petition of a corporation, be dated and duly authenticated and under the seal of the corporation.

Form of petition

(6) A petition to the Senate must:

(a) be in a form prescribed by the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, on sheets of paper of standard or legal size;

(b) be an original, not a photocopy or facsimile;

(c) be legible, whether it is written, typewritten, printed or some combination of these;

(d) be free of extraneous matter in its text and of alterations; and

(e) reproduce on every sheet its identification as a petition to the Senate or to the Senate in Parliament assembled and the text of the request, if it consists of more than one sheet of signatures and addresses.

Examiner of Petitions

(7) The Director of Committees shall be the Examiner of Petitions.

Petition on behalf of public meeting

70. Petitions signed by persons purporting to represent public meetings shall be received only as the petitions of the persons who sign.

Public petitions

71. (1) In this rule, "public petition'' means a petition to the Senate or the Senate in Parliament assembled by at least 25 persons, other than Senators and members of the House of Commons, that is filed for examination, presentation, referral and report under this rule.

Filing for examination

(2) A person may file a public petition with the Clerk of the Senate who shall, at the request of a Senator who proposes to sponsor it, refer it to the Examiner of Petitions for examination for compliance with rule 69.

Referral

(3) Where a Senator presents a public petition in the Senate with a report by the Examiner of Petitions attached advising that the petition is in compliance with rule 69, the petition, its subject-matter and the report shall be referred, without notice and without debate, to the appropriate standing committee.

Report

(4) The committee to which a public petition is referred under subsection (3) may report on its findings and recommendations, if any, to the Senate.''.

4. Considering Provincial Secession Referendum Questions

Original Motion:

THAT the Rules of the Senate be amended, in rule 26,

(a) by adding the following before subsection (1):

"Constitutional business

(1) Constitutional Business: Orders of the Day for motions under rule 26.1(3);''

(b) by renumbering subsections (1) and (2) and all cross-references thereto accordingly; and

(c) by adding the following after rule 26:

"Question considered

26.1 (1) Immediately after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, motions to refer that question to Committee of the Whole for consideration and report may be moved without leave at the next sitting of the Senate, and, if moved, must be considered and disposed of in priority to all other orders of the day.

Clear majority considered

(2) Immediately after the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of that province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms of which that province might cease to be a part of Canada, motions to refer the subject of the clarity of the majority achieved in the referendum to Committee of the Whole for consideration and report may be moved without leave at the next sitting of the Senate, and, if moved, must be considered and disposed of in priority to all other Orders of the Day.

Order of business

(3) Notwithstanding rule 23(8), the Speaker shall call for motions under this rule as the first item of business after Question Period.

Priority

(4) Motions under this rule shall be considered and disposed of in the following order: a motion, if any, by the Government Leader; a motion, if any, by the Leader of the Opposition; a motion, if any, by the leader of a recognized third party in the Senate; motions, if any, by other Senators.

Deemed disposition

(5) Only one order of reference at a time may be made under subsections (1) and (2), and as soon as an order of reference is adopted, with or without amendment, the remaining motions fall from the order paper.

Time

(6) Where the Senate adopts an order of reference under subsection (1), the Committee of the Whole shall report within fifteen days of the commencement of proceedings in the Senate under subsection (1).

Transmission of findings

(7) When the Senate adopts a resolution in respect of a report presented pursuant to subsections (1) and (6), the Speaker of the Senate shall transmit copies of the resolution and of all proceedings held under this rule in the Senate and in the Committee of the Whole, including a complete copy of every representation made under this rule, to the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Speakers of each provincial and territorial legislative assembly in Canada.

Provincial representation

(8) Where an order is made under subsection (2), the Clerk of the Senate, immediately following the adoption of the report, shall invite the government of every province and territory to make verbal or written representations to the Committee of the Whole, and every province and territory that replies in the affirmative shall be given reasonable opportunity to do so.

Minority representation

(9) Where an order is made under subsection (2), the Committee of the Whole shall decide which representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada and of the English and French linguistic minority population of each province and territory should be invited to make verbal or written representations to the Committee, and every representative who replies in the affirmative shall be given reasonable opportunity to do so.

Time

(10) Where the Senate adopts an order of reference under subsection (2), the Committee of the Whole shall report within fifteen days of the commencement of proceedings in the Senate under subsection (2).

Transmission of findings

(11) When the Senate adopts a resolution in respect of a report presented pursuant to subsections (2) and (10), the Speaker of the Senate shall transmit copies of the resolution and of all proceedings held under this rule in the Senate and in Committee of the Whole, including a complete copy of every representation made under this rule, to the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Speakers of each provincial and territorial legislative assembly in Canada.''

Recommendation:

That, with the exception of clauses 26.1(8) to (11), the Senate adopt the substance of the October 16, 2000 motion of Senator Kinsella, seconded by Senator Forrestall, that would add a rule 26.1 to provide for the expeditious consideration of secession referendum questions or referendum results by Committee of the Whole, upon their being tabled in a provincial legislature or otherwise officially released.

Proposed Rule:

THAT the Rules of the Senate be amended, in rule 26,

(a) by adding the following before subsection (1):

"Constitutional business

(1) Constitutional Business: Orders of the Day for motions under rule 26.1(3).''

(b) by renumbering subsections (1) and (2) as (2) and (3) and all cross-references thereto accordingly; and

(c) by adding the following after rule 26:

"Question considered

26.1 (1) Immediately after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, motions to refer that question to Committee of the Whole for consideration and report may be moved without leave at the next sitting of the Senate, and, if moved, must be considered and disposed of in priority to all other orders of the day.

Clear majority considered

(2) Immediately after the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of that province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms of which that province might cease to be a part of Canada, motions to refer the subject of the clarity of the majority achieved in the referendum to Committee of the Whole for consideration and report may be moved without leave at the next sitting of the Senate, and, if moved, must be considered and disposed of in priority to all other Orders of the Day.

Order of business

(3) Notwithstanding rule 23(8), the Speaker shall call for motions under this rule as the first item of business after Question Period.

Priority

(4) Motions under this rule shall be considered and disposed of in the following order: a motion, if any, by the Government Leader; a motion, if any, by the Leader of the Opposition; a motion, if any, by the leader of a recognized third party in the Senate; motions, if any, by other Senators.

Deemed disposition

(5) Only one order of reference at a time may be made under subsection (1) or (2) and, as soon as an order of reference is adopted, with or without amendment, the remaining motions shall be dropped from the Order Paper.

Time

(6) Where the Senate adopts an order of reference under this rule, the Committee of the Whole shall report within fifteen calendar days after proceedings commenced in the Senate under subsection (1) or (2).

Transmission of findings

(7) When the Senate adopts a resolution in respect of a report presented pursuant to this rule, the Speaker of the Senate shall transmit copies of the resolution and of all proceedings held under this rule in the Senate and in the Committee of the Whole, including a complete copy of every representation made under this rule, to the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Speakers of each provincial and territorial legislative assembly in Canada.''.

5. Recognition of Attendance Via Video-Conferencing

Text of a letter received:

June 15, 2001

Dear Chair:

Re: Meeting of Rules Committee, June 19-20, 2001

I would like to raise an issue of committee attendance for consideration at next week's meeting.

On May 9^th, along with witnesses from British Columbia, I participated in a Fisheries Committee meeting via video- conference from Vancouver. It is recorded in the official Committee Hansard that I am "Attending by Video Conference'', not as one of the "Members of the Committee present''. It is ludicrous to suggest that committee members who participate via video or tele-conferencing not be considered as "Members of the Committee present''.

Also, under the current Rules of the Senate, for recording in the official Senator attendance Register I cannot be marked under the section of "Committee Meetings Attended'', but marked only as being on "Public Business'', even though my participation, like that of the other committee members and the B.C. witnesses, was recorded in the official committee Hansard.

I am therefore suggesting that the Rules be changed so that Committee Senators, who for good reason have to participate either by video or tele-conferencing, be considered present — whether the Committee meeting is "on the record'' or "in camera'' — since our participation is a matter of record.

I thank you and your Committee for considering this process of unfair "attendance recording'' and I look forward to any amendments you may make to set the record straight.

Yours sincerely,

[original signed by:]
Hon. Pat Carney, P.C.
Senator for British Columbia

(1) The formal title of the Act is An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Quebec Secession Reference, 2000.

Journals of the Senate

51 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2002, Canada

Journals of the Senate

1st Session, 37th Parliament

Issue 122 - Appendix

Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:00 p.m.

The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker

STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT

MODERNIZING THE SENATE FROM WITHIN: UPDATING THE SENATE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

Tuesday, June 11, 2002
2:00 p.m.

STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND
THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT

MODERNIZING THE SENATE FROM WITHIN:
UPDATING THE SENATE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE