Journals of the Senate
53 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2004, Canada
Journals of the Senate
3rd Session, 37th Parliament
Issue 12
Thursday, February 19, 2004
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Beaudoin, Biron, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carney, Carstairs, Chaput, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Downe, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Graham, Gustafson, Harb, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Kroft, LaPierre, Lapointe, Lavigne, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Massicotte, Meighen, Mercer, Merchant, Milne, Moore, Morin, Munson, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Plamondon, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robertson, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, St. Germain, Smith, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tkachuk, Trenholme Counsell, Watt
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Beaudoin, Biron, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carney, Carstairs, Chaput, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, *Cordy, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Downe, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Graham, Gustafson, Harb, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, *Kirby, Kroft, LaPierre, Lapointe, Lavigne, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Massicotte, Meighen, Mercer, Merchant, Milne, Moore, Morin, Munson, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Plamondon, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robertson, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, St. Germain, Smith, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tkachuk, Trenholme Counsell, Watt
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Documents
The Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., tabled the following:
Supplementary Estimates (B) 2003-2004.—Sessional Paper No. 3/37-48.
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Bacon presented the following:
THURSDAY, February 19, 2004
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its
THIRD REPORT
Your Committee recommends that the following funds be released for fiscal year 2003-2004.
Transport and Communications (Legislation)
Professional and Other Services $ 4,800 Transportation and Communications — Other Expenditures 500 Total $ 5,300
Respectfully submitted,
LISE BACON
Chair
The Honourable Senator Bacon moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Maheu, 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 Losier-Cool presented the following:
THURSDAY, February 19, 2004
The Committee of Selection has the honour to present its
THIRD REPORT
Your Committee recommends a change of membership to the following Committee:
Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights
The Honourable Senator Plamondon replaces the Honourable Senator Mercer as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
Respectfully submitted,
ROSE-MARIE LOSIER-COOL
Chair
The Honourable Senator Losier-Cool moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, 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 Hervieux-Payette, P.C., presented the following:
THURSDAY, February 19, 2004
The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has the honour to present its
FIRST REPORT
Your Committee reports that in relation to its permanent reference, section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-22, the Committee was previously empowered "to study the means by which Parliament can better oversee the government regulatory process and in particular to enquire into and report upon:
1. the appropriate principles and practices to be observed
(a) in the drafting of powers enabling delegates of Parliament to make subordinate laws;
(b) in the enactment of statutory instruments;
(c) in the use of executive regulation — including delegated powers and subordinate laws;
and the manner in which Parliamentary control should be effected in respect of the same;
2. the role, functions and powers of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.''
Your Committee recommends that the same order of reference together with the evidence adduced thereon during previous sessions be again referred to it.
Your Committee informs both Houses of Parliament that the criteria it will use for the review and scrutiny of statutory instruments are the following:
Whether any Regulation or other statutory instrument within its terms of reference, in the judgement of the Committee:
1. is not authorized by the terms of the enabling legislation or has not complied with any condition set forth in the legislation;
2. is not in conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Bill of Rights;
3. purports to have retroactive effect without express authority having been provided for in the enabling legislation;
4. imposes a charge on the public revenues or requires payment to be made to the Crown or to any other authority, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payment, without express authority having been provided for in the enabling legislation;
5. imposes a fine, imprisonment or other penalty without express authority having been provided for in the enabling legislation;
6. tends directly or indirectly to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts without express authority having been provided for in the enabling legislation;
7. has not complied with the Statutory Instruments Act with respect to transmission, registration or publication;
8. appears for any reason to infringe the rule of law;
9. trespasses unduly on rights and liberties;
10. makes the rights and liberties of the person unduly dependent on administrative discretion or is not consistent with the rules of natural justice;
11. makes some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the enabling legislation;
12. amounts to the exercise of a substantive legislative power properly the subject of direct parliamentary enactment;
13. is defective in its drafting or for any other reason requires elucidation as to its form or purport.
Your Committee recommends that its quorum be fixed at 4 members, provided that both Houses are represented whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof so long as 3 members are present, provided that both Houses are represented; and, that the Committee have power to engage the services of such expert staff, and such stenographic and clerical staff as may be required.
Your Committee further recommends to the Senate that it be empowered to sit during sittings and adjournments of the Senate.
Your Committee, which was also authorized by the Senate to incur expenses in connection with its permanent reference relating to the review and scrutiny of statutory instruments, reports, pursuant to Rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate, that the expenses of the Committee (Senate portion) during the Second Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament were as follows:
Professional and Other Services $ 14,149 Transport and Communications — All Other Expenses 11,490 Total $ 25,639
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (Issue No. 1, Third Session, Thirty-Seventh Parliament) is tabled in the House of Commons.
Respectfully submitted,
CELINE HERVIEUX-PAYETTE
Joint Chair
The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C. moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., 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 Banks, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, presented its Second Report (budget—study on emerging issues related to its mandate).
(The Report is printed as Appendix "A'')
The Honourable Senator Banks moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Furey, 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 Fraser, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, presented its Second Report (budget—study on the Canadian media).
(The Report is printed as Appendix "B'')
The Honourable Senator Fraser moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gauthier, 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 Kenny, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, presented its Second Report (budget—study on the need for a national security policy for Canada).
(The Report is printed as Appendix "C'')
The Honourable Senator Kenny moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Furey, 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 Comeau tabled the following (Sessional Paper No. 3/37-49S):
THURSDAY, February 19, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has the honour to table its
FIRST REPORT
Your Committee, which was authorized by the Senate to incur expenses for the purpose of its examination and consideration of such legislation and other matters as were referred to it, reports, pursuant to Rule 104, that the expenses incurred by the Committee during the Second Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament are as follows:
1. With respect to its study on straddling stock and fish habitat:
Professional Services $ 11,605 Transportation 17,298 Other, Miscellaneous 130 Witness Expenses 31,818 Total $ 60,851
2. With respect to its study relating to quota allocations and benefits to Nunavut and Nunavik fishermen:
Professional Services $ 1,561 Transportation — Other, Miscellaneous — Witness Expenses 16,718 Total $ 18,279
During the session, your Committee held 32 meetings over more than 50 hours, heard 70 witnesses and submitted 6 reports in relation to its work.
Your Committee travelled on a fact-finding visit to St. John, New Brunswick in October 2003 to study straddling stocks and fish habitat.
Respectfully submitted,
GERALD J. COMEAU
Chair
Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills
The Honourable Senator Stratton presented a Bill S-13, An Act to provide for increased transparency and objectivity in the selection of suitable individuals to be named to certain high public positions.
The Bill was read the first time.
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, that the Bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading two days hence.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Presentation of Petitions
The Honourable Senator Fraser presented petitions:
Of Residents of the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario with respect to declaring Ottawa officially bilingual.
The Honourable Senator Léger presented petitions:
Of Residents of the Provinces of New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec with respect to declaring Ottawa officially bilingual.
The Honourable Senator Comeau presented petitions:
Of Residents of the Provinces of New Brunswick and Ontario with respect to declaring Ottawa officially bilingual.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Smith, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-5, An Act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Di Nino moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Buchanan, P.C., that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 2 and 3 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pearson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Christensen, for the second reading of Bill C-16, An Act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code 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 Pearson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Poy, that the Bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 5 and 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Second reading of Bill C-7, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety.
The Honourable Senator Day moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Christensen, that the Bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Johnson, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Motions
Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gustafson, for the second reading of Bill S-2, An Act to prevent unsolicited messages on the Internet.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Keon, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Order No. 3 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Banks, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, for the second reading of Bill S-11, An Act to repeal legislation that has not been brought into force within ten years of receiving royal assent.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Watt, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Second reading of Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (modernization of employment and labour relations).
The Honourable Senator Nolin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, that the Bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 6 to 8 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Commons Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 4 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees
Consideration of the Second Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (clarification of its mandate), presented in the Senate on February 17, 2004.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C. moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, that further debate on the consideration of the Report be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Other
The Order was called to resume debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gauthier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser:
That, pursuant to Rule 131(2), the Senate ask the Government to table a detailed and comprehensive response to the Fourth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, tabled in the Senate on October 1, 2003, during the Second Session of the 37th Parliament, and adopted on October 28, 2003.
SPEAKER'S RULING
Two related points of order have been raised objecting to separate motions made with respect to the application of a relatively new rule, namely rule 131 (2) of the Rules of the Senate. In the first instance, Senator Gauthier has moved that the Government provide a response to a report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which was tabled and adopted late in the previous session. In the second instance, a motion stands in the name of Senator Sibbeston that a report from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, which was also tabled during the 2nd Session of the 37th Parliament, but was not adopted at the time, be adopted now and that a response from the Government be requested. Senator Corbin objects to these two motions on procedural grounds.
Senator Corbin has argued that, in both cases, it is beyond our rules and practices to take into consideration committee reports from a previous session. In the case of the motion from Senator Gauthier, Senator Corbin has also argued that the rule requires that the motion for a response be made immediately following the report's adoption. In the case of the motion of Senator Sibbeston, Senator Corbin pointed out that, in his words "we are faced here with...an even greater sin'', since the report had not even been adopted in the previous session. Senator Corbin received support from Senator Kinsella on this latter point, who also provided input on other aspects.
I am indebted to Senator Gauthier, Senator Milne and Senator Robichaud, who also intervened on these points of order. As always, I appreciate the participation and assistance of all honourable Senators in sorting out these matters.
The impact of prorogation on the Order Paper is well known. The 6th edition of Beauchesne's, citation 235(1), page 66, says "The effect of prorogation is at once to suspend all business until Parliament shall be summoned again. Not only are the sittings of Parliament at an end, but all proceedings pending at the time are quashed. Every bill must therefore be renewed, as if it were introduced for the first time.'' It is important to make a distinction here as to what is quashed. The citation clearly specifies "proceedings''. Proceedings on bills, reports and motions may no longer continue; all proceedings are at an end.
The citation continues: "In recent years it has become common, by consent, to reinstate certain bills on the Order Paper of a new session at the same stage that they had reached before prorogation.'' In fact, since the 6th edition of Beauchesne's was published in 1989, it has become a routine practice in the House of Commons for Government Business and Private Member's Business to be reinstated. It is now a well-established precedent in Canadian practice to bring forward matters from a previous session.
Returning to Beauchesne's again, citation 890, page 244, makes it clear that reports from previous sessions, may, if the House agrees to such a motion, be considered by the chamber in a subsequent session. Both committee reports referred to in the contested motions were properly before the Senate prior to prorogation. Clearly, then, prorogation does not represent an insurmountable obstacle that prohibits the Senate from considering in a new session, any item that remained on the Order Paper from a previous session.
This is the first time a point of order has been raised with respect to this new rule and it differs in substantial ways from the relevant Standing Order in the House of Commons. Rule 131(2) is silent on the effect of prorogation, if any, on a request for a Government response. In the other place, according to the procedural authority House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by Marleau and Montpetit, such requests are treated in the same manner as orders for the production of papers, which, by their Standing Orders, survive prorogations and may even be reinstated following dissolutions. Therefore, the 150 calendar days continue to be counted as though no prorogation had occurred. As another example, the practice in the other place is to refer such requests for Government responses by motion, adopted in committee, not by motion in their chamber, as is the case in our rules.
Rule 131(2) provides for the possibility that a motion seeking a Government response may be moved "...subsequent to the adoption of a report.'' No time frame is specified to define "subsequent'', so I cannot agree with Senator Corbin's interpretation that the motion must be moved "...immediately after the report is adopted.'' In fact, in the scenario he addresses, where there is no recommendation in the report to be adopted asking for a Government response and where the motion for adoption of the report does not include a request for a Government response, two days notice would be required to move a substantive motion for the referral of a request for a Government response.
A suggestion was made that committees should be asked to re-Table a report in a new session, to ensure that it is properly before the Senate. This would require new orders of reference, the referral of evidence from the last session, and the readoption of reports by committees before tabling them again in the Senate. However, I do not believe this is necessary. The Senate, as evidenced by the motions it has been passing the past few days, routinely refers unfinished committee matters from previous sessions back to them so they can continue their work. By the same logic, the Senate has the discretion to refer outstanding matters from previous sessions for its own consideration.
What we are faced with are two motions asking the Senate to consider a distinct proposition — in one case, whether or not to ask for a response to a committee report adopted in a previous session and in the second case, to adopt a committee report from a previous session, and at the same time, to request a Government response to it. To my mind, the principle behind this is sound; two of our colleagues are making specific proposals for the Senate's consideration.
So long as the motion is clear and unambiguous, I see no procedural impediment depriving Senators of the opportunity to debate and decide such motions on their respective merits. It is my decision, therefore, that debate on these two separate motions may proceed.
Order No. 2 (motion) was postponed until the next sitting.
The Order was called to resume debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gauthier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser:
That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized to examine, for the purposes of reporting by March 1, 2004, all Senate procedure related to the tabling of petitions in this Chamber in Parliament assembled, that a procedural clerk, having examined the form and content, certify the petitions in accordance with established standards and that follow-up be provided for in the Rules of the Senate,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Corbin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Maheu, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That'' and substituting the following therefor:
"the history of the practice in both the Senate and the House of Commons relating to petitions other than petitions for private bills, as well as the customs, conventions and practices of the two Houses at Westminster, be tabled in the Senate and distributed to the honourable senators before being referred to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.''
SPEAKER'S RULING
On Monday, February 16, Senator Gauthier raised a point of order to object to the amendment that Senator Corbin had proposed to a motion that Senator Gauthier had moved several days earlier. Senator Gauthier's motion seeks to authorize the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to report on Senate practices with respect to the consideration of petitions. The amendment of Senator Corbin substituted the original proposition with another requiring that information about the history of the practice of petitions in the Senate and the House of Commons and at Westminster be tabled in the Senate before being referred to the Rules Committee.
According to Senator Gauthier this amendment, if adopted, would supersede his original proposition altogether. He based his analysis on several parliamentary authorities including Beauchesne which he cited specifically. He claimed that such an amendment was procedurally irregular, unacceptable and out of order. Whatever the merits of Senator Corbin's proposition, Senator Gauthier maintained that it should be introduced as a separate motion, after notice, not as an amendment.
By way of reply, Senator Corbin indicated that the sole purpose of his amendment was to ensure that any changes made to current practice and the Rules of the Senate be based on an understanding of their historical origins, application and development. As he explained it, "people rarely take the time to carry out a historical overview in order to try to understand why the rules are worded in such a way, and why they are sometimes so strictly applied.'' As to being a dilatory motion, Senator Corbin denied any motive or intent to thwart the objectives of Senator Gauthier's motion.
Following these comments, I indicated that I would consider the point of order and return to the Senate with a decision as soon as I could. Having reviewed the Debates and both the motion and the proposed amendment, I am now prepared to give my ruling.
Standard parliamentary authorities, such as Marleau and Montpetit at page 454, state that a superseding motion is "proposed with the intention of putting aside further discussion of whatever question is before the House.'' Superseding motions are divided into two classes: one is the Previous Question; the other is a dilatory motion. Dilatory motions include motions to adjourn the House, to adjourn debate or to proceed to another order of business. The amendment of Senator Corbin is none of these.
Instead, Senator Corbin's amendment addresses the substance of Senator Gauthier's motion and proposes to alter it significantly. If adopted, Senator Corbin's amendment would displace entirely the proposition of Senator Gauthier. By practice, amendments can be quite broad and encompassing in their effect. Beauchesne's citation 567 at page 175 explains that, "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.'' To accomplish this, motions may be amended by leaving out certain words, leaving out certain words in order to insert other words, or inserting or adding other words. Amendments may even substitute a proposition with an opposite conclusion.
This being said, I think it is useful to point out that the amendment of Senator Corbin may not be drafted to achieve what he wanted. I say this because, in reading the text carefully, I note that there is no appropriate responsibility identified for preparing the history of the petitions, nor is there a date for the production of this history. Equally significant, while the amendment insists that this history be prepared and distributed to members of the Senate before going to the Rules Committee, it does not actually refer the matter to that Committee. The lack of clarity in this amendment makes it somewhat problematic in its intent.
It may be that further refinement of his amendment would assist us all in understanding exactly what should happen and when. I will remind Senators of our rule 30 which allows that a motion may be modified with leave of the Senate. In conclusion, I can find no reason for this amendment to be ruled out of order on procedural grounds. It is my ruling that debate may continue on the amendment.
Order No. 3 (motion) was postponed until the next sitting.
Orders No. 24, 9 (motions) and 1 (inquiry) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Poy:
That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament study the manner in which Private Members Business, including Bills and Motions, are dealt with in this Chamber and that the Committee report back no later than November 30, 2004.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Poy moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pearson, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Honourable Senator Chaput moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ringuette:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to study and report from time to time upon the operation of the Official Languages Act, and of regulations and directives made thereunder, within those institutions subject to the Act, as well as upon the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage;
That the Committee table its final report no later than June 30 2004; and
That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject and the work accomplished during the Second Session of the 37th Parliament be referred to the Committee.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Honourable Senator Maheu moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights 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.
The Honourable Senator Maheu moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Honourable Senator Maheu moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine and report upon key legal issues affecting the subject of on-reserve matrimonial real property on the breakdown of a marriage or common law relationship and the policy context in which they are situated.
In particular, the Committee shall be authorized to examine:
The interplay between provincial and federal laws in addressing the division of matrimonial property (both personal and real) on-reserve and, in particular, enforcement of court decisions;
The practice of land allotment on-reserve, in particular with respect to custom land allotment;
In a case of marriage or common-law relationships, the status of spouses and how real property is divided on the breakdown of the relationship; and
possible solutions that would balance individual and community interests.
That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject and the work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights during the Second Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament be referred to the Committee; and
That the Committee submit its final report no later than June 25, 2004, and that the Committee retain all powers necessary to publicize the findings of the Committee contained in the final report until July 30, 2004.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 28(2):
Report of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, pursuant to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, S.C. 1997, c. 6, s. 23.—Sessional Paper No. 3/37- 47.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 5:56 p.m. the Senate was continued until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.)
_______________________________________________________________
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce
The names of the Honourable Senators Maheu and Hervieux-Payette substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Hervieux-Payette and Maheu (February 19).