Journals of the Senate
53 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2004, Canada
Journals of the Senate
1st Session, 38th Parliament
Issue 25
Thursday, December 9, 2004
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Banks, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chaput, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Doody, Downe, Fairbairn, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gill, Grafstein, Gustafson, Harb, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Lapointe, Lavigne, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Massicotte, Meighen, Merchant, Milne, Moore, Munson, Murray, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Plamondon, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, St. Germain, Sibbeston, 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, Banks, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chaput, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Doody, Downe, Fairbairn, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gill, Grafstein, Gustafson, Harb, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, *Kirby, Lapointe, Lavigne, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Massicotte, Meighen, Merchant, Milne, Moore, Munson, Murray, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Plamondon, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, St. Germain, Sibbeston, Smith, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tkachuk, Trenholme Counsell, Watt
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some honourable senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills
The Honourable Senator Harb presented a Bill S-22, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (mandatory voting).
The bill was read the first time.
The Honourable Senator Harb moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lavigne, that the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading Thursday, December 16, 2004.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Presentation of Petitions
The Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., presented a petition:
Of The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, of the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario; praying for the passage of an Act to amend the Act of incorporation of The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada.
SPEAKER'S RULING
On Tuesday, December 7, when the Senate reached Orders of the Day, Senator Tkachuk raised a point of order. The Senator claimed that the sponsor's speech on the motion for the second reading of Bill C-4 violated rule 46 in that, as he claimed, its content repeated in large measure a speech given by the Parliamentary Secretary at the second reading of the bill in the other place. During the course of his remarks, Senator Tkachuk noted that much the same thing had happened as well with respect to the second reading speech on Bill C-7. As a remedy, the Senator proposed that the offending speech on Bill C-4 be declared out of order and struck from the Debates of the Senate.
Senator Austin, the Leader of the Government, responded to the alleged infraction of rule 46. The Senator acknowledged the importance of the rule and he agreed that it was not good practice to duplicate in substance a speech given by a Minister in the other place. Nonetheless, in his view, Senator Austin did not believe that what had occurred was against the rules of this place.
Other Senators also participated in the discussion of the point of order. Senator Kinsella, the Leader of the Opposition, took the position that the fault in this incident rested mainly with officials who did not adequately understand the distinctions that exists in a bicameral Parliament. Senator Cools then intervened to deplore the use of repeating speeches prepared by others. This practice, she argued, was not worthy of senators. For his part, Senator Stratton questioned whether citing the speech of a Parliamentary Secretary, rather than a Minister, fell within the meaning of rule 46. Denying that there was a point of order, Senator Carstairs joined in criticizing departmental officials who recycled speeches written for a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary when preparing material for the Senate sponsor of a government bill. Nonetheless, as the Senator explained, since government legislation is clearly an expression of policy, the use of a speech made by a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary in the other place, while not good practice, is permitted under rule 46. Following some additional exchanges, the Speaker pro tempore agreed to take the matter under advisement and reserved a decision.
I have had time to consult with the Speaker pro tempore, to read the Debates of the Senate on the point of order and to review rule 46 and the relevant parliamentary authorities. I am now prepared to give my decision.
Rule 46 states that "The content of a speech made in the House of Commons in the current session may be summarized, but it is out of order to quote from a speech unless it be a speech of a Minister of the Crown in relation to government policy. A Senator may always quote from a speech made in a previous session.'' According to the Companion of the Rules of the Senate published in 1994, this rule dates back at least to 1975 and similar rules exist, or have existed, in the other place and at Westminster for a very long time. The Companion on pages 138 and 139 also refers to rulings of Senate Speakers dating back to 1954 and 1956 that prohibited any attempt to allude to the debates and proceedings of the other place. The purpose of this rule is very simple. As is explained in the 22nd edition of the British parliamentary text, Erskine May, this constraint on the content of speeches is intended to avoid "anything which might bring the two Houses into conflict and to prevent a debate in the House of Lords becoming a continuation of a debate in the House of Commons.'' I should note, however, that the 23rd edition of Erskine May, published just this year, indicates that this rule has been abolished both with respect to references to Commons speeches in the Lords and to Lords speeches in the Commons. Given this change, it appears that the threat of open conflict between the Commons and the Lords is now recognized to be more apparent than real. Be that as it may, rule 46 is still part of our practices and, as Speaker, I am obliged to interpret its applicability when confronted with a point of order raised with respect to it.
As I read it, rule 46 allows that the content of speeches made in the other place during the current session can be cited in the Senate. These references, however, should be in summary form unless "it be a speech of a Minister of the Crown in relation to government policy''. Rule 46, therefore, actually permits the direct use of a speech made by a Minister on government policy. With respect to this important exemption in rule 46, I accept the view that a government bill is an expression of its policy. Moreover, I do not think it is reasonable to read this rule in such a way that it would limit the right to cite a ministerial speech that was delivered by a Parliamentary Secretary for a Minister. One reason why Parliamentary Secretaries were created was, in fact, to allow them to act on behalf of Ministers. Acting in that capacity, there can be little doubt that a speech made by a Parliamentary Secretary for a Minister is an expression of government policy. This is the critical element that provides the exemption permitted by the rule.
Now, where does this leave us with respect to the allegation that the speech made by the Senate sponsor of Bill C-4 was based largely on the second reading speech of the Minister in the other place? In answering this question I mean to apply it as well to the case of the speech made by the Senate sponsor of Bill C-7 since Senator Tkachuk included this second bill within the scope of his point of order on Bill C-4. Given my understanding of the rule, there is not sufficient justification to substantiate the complaint of the point of order. Indeed, as I have already stated, rule 46 expressly allows for the citation of a ministerial speech related to government policy. It may be that the text used in the Senate duplicates much that had been said in the other place, and there was much said here deprecating this practice of recycling, but this is not forbidden by rule 46.
Let me add, parenthetically that I agree with Honourable Senators who maintain that this Chamber operates best when its members engage in debate that does not rely entirely on a prepared text. That is why there is a practice that discourages reading speeches, though this too is rarely enforced.
As to the point of order, I read nothing in the exchanges to suggest that either of the Senate sponsors acknowledged that they were citing a ministerial speech previously used in the other place. To my mind, this raises two possible alternate explanations. One, they were not informed that their speeches prepared with the assistance of government officials used material of earlier speeches. Alternatively, either or both Senate sponsors gave speeches that they accepted as an expression of their views on their respective bills. Either possibility would make an acknowledgement that their remarks cited the text of a ministerial speech unlikely. Even if there had been an acknowledgement, for the reasons I have already explained, it would not constitute a breach of rule 46 to justify the point of order.
I wish to make one final comment before we resume debate. The remedy that Senator Tkachuk proposed had the point of order been sustained was that I, as Speaker, strike the offending text from the Debates, that I effectively expunge it from the record. In point of fact, rule 46 does not give the Speaker such an authority. There is nothing explicit in the rule to allow this. Had there been a violation of rule 46, and had I been aware of it, or had the Speaker pro tempore been aware of it, as it was occurring, my authority would have been limited to counseling the Senator to refrain from citing the House of Commons speech. As to an after the fact point of order, my authority would be limited to deprecating the violation. Rule 46 does not provide for the suppression of an offending speech. Such a measure could only be made by the Senate itself on motion.
Accordingly, it is my ruling that no point of order has been made on the basis of a breach of rule 46 and second reading debate on Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 can continue.
With leave,
The Senate reverted to Presentation of Reports From Standing or Special Committees.
The Honourable Senator Grafstein presented the following:
Thursday, December 9, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has the honour to present its
THIRD REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-5, An Act to provide financial assistance for post-secondary education savings, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, December 8, 2004, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment but with observations, which are appended to this report.
Respectfully submitted,
JERAHMIEL S. GRAFSTEIN
Chair
Observations of the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce
Your Committee notes that the Bill does not address concerns about financial and other supports for post- secondary education, and urges the appropriate Senate Committee to study, and recommend solutions, to these concerns.
The Honourable Senator Moore moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Phalen, 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.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Second reading of Bill C-14, An Act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
The Honourable Senator Sibbeston moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gill, that the bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Stratton for the Honourable Senator St. Germain, P.C, moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator LeBreton, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Senate having been informed of the death of the Honourable Philippe Gigantès, former Senator, which occurred today, a minute of silence was observed.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Phalen, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley, for the second reading of Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Phalen moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, that the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gill, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related 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 Gill moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Adams, 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.
Order No. 2 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, for the second reading of Bill S-21, An act to amend the criminal Code (protection of children).
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator LeBreton, 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 to 5 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Second reading of Bill S-20, An Act to provide for increased transparency and objectivity in the selection of suitable individuals to be named to certain high public positions.
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator LeBreton, 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. 7 and 8 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Second reading of Bill S-15, An Act to prevent unsolicited messages on the Internet.
The Honourable Senator Oliver moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cochrane, that the bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Oliver 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.
Reports of Committees
Orders No. 1 to 4 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Order No. 10 (inquiry) was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lavigne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.:
That the Rules of the Senate be amended by adding after rule 135 the following:
135.1 Every Senator shall, after taking his or her Seat, take and subscribe an oath of allegiance to Canada, in the following form, before the Speaker or a person authorized to take the oath:
I, (full name of the Senator), do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Corbin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Order No. 1 (inquiry) was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Di Nino, seconded by the Honourable Senator Keon:
That, as a follow up to the goodwill generated by the visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Ottawa last April, the Senate call upon the Government of Canada to use its friendly relations with China to urge it to enter into meaningful negotiations, without preconditions, with representatives of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to peacefully resolve the issue of Tibet.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 2, 6 and 4 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C.:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to sit at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Honourable Senator Harb moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk:
That the Government of Canada vigorously condemn the Burmese military junta's extension of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi's term of house arrest and call for it immediately to revoke this measure, to introduce democratic reforms and to abide by its human rights obligations, and further that the Government of Canada, as an international leader in the defense of human rights and democratic institutions, make it an urgent priority to take action in the form of: implementation of effective economic measures against the military regime; increased diplomatic sanctions, including the exclusion of active participation of the Burmese military junta from trade and investment promotion events in Canada; and increased assistance to Burmese refugees in border regions of adjacent countries as well as with those in need within Burma through accountable non-governmental organizations and UN agencies.
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.
The Honourable Senator Fraser moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks:
That pursuant to rule 95(3)(a), the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to meet Thursday, December 16, 2004 as part of its study of the Canadian news media, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Honourable Senator Fraser moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks:
That, pursuant to rule 95(3)(a), the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to meet during the week beginning Monday, January 31, 2005 as part of its study of the Canadian news media, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
With leave,
The Senate reverted to Government Notices of Motions.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C. moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Monday, December 13, 2004 at 8 p.m.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 28(2):
Actuarial Report of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions on the Canada Pension Plan dated December 31, 2003, pursuant to the Canada Pension Plan Act, S.C. 1997, c. 40, s. 96.—Sessional Paper No. 1/38-328.
Debt Management Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, S.C. 1999, c. 26, s. 23.—Sessional Paper No. 1/38-329.
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 4:34 p.m. the Senate was continued until Monday, December 13, 2004 at 8 p.m.)
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples
The name of the Honourable Senator Christensen substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Banks (December 8).
Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
The name of the Honourable Senator Chaput substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Christensen (December 8).
The name of the Honourable Senator Christensen substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Chaput (December 9).
Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
The name of the Honourable Senator Mahovlich substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Downe (December 8).
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The name of the Honourable Senator Stollery substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Harb (December 8).
The name of the Honourable Senator Harb substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Stollery (December 9).
Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce
The names of the Honourable Senators Cordy, Robichaud, Losier-Cool, Mahovlich, and Rompkey substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Rompkey, Fitzpatrick, Harb, Grafstein and Biron (December 8).
The names of the Honourable Senators Harb, Grafstein, Biron and Gustafson substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Losier-Cool, Mahovlich, Cordy and Oliver (December 9).