Journals of the Senate
54 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2005, Canada
Journals of the Senate
1st Session, 38th Parliament
Issue 39
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Biron, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chaput, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Day, De Bané, Doody, Downe, Eyton, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Gill, Gustafson, Harb, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Kinsella, Kirby, Lapointe, Lavigne, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Mahovlich, Massicotte, Meighen, Mercer, Milne, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Plamondon, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, Sibbeston, Smith, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tkachuk, Trenholme Counsell, Watt
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Biron, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, *Carney, Carstairs, Chaput, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, *Cordy, Day, De Bané, *Di Nino, Doody, Downe, Eyton, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Gill, *Grafstein, Gustafson, Harb, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Kinsella, Kirby, Lapointe, Lavigne, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Mahovlich, Massicotte, Meighen, Mercer, Milne, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Plamondon, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, Sibbeston, Smith, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tkachuk, Trenholme Counsell, Watt
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some honourable senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Documents
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Banks tabled the following:
Five letters on bills regarding the carriage of grain by rail. (English texts)—Sessional Paper No. 1/38-402S.
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Corbin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, tabled its fourth report (study on the application of the Official Languages Act) —Sessional Paper No. 1/38-403S.
The Honourable Senator Meighen, member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, presented its sixth report (budget—Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs— Study on the services and benefits provided to veterans).
(The report is printed as an appendix)
The Honourable Senator Meighen moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forrestall, 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.
Notices of Motions
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Kirby moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Poy:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology have power to sit at 3:30 p.m. today, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that the Rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
SPEAKER'S RULING
On Tuesday, February 15, Senator Lynch-Staunton raised a point of order to object to proceedings that had occurred Thursday, February 10 with respect to the third reading and passage of Bill C-14. This bill, which provides for certain land claims and for a self-government agreement among the Tlicho, was adopted with leave the same day it was reported from committee without amendment. Indeed, the third reading motion was put almost immediately following the presentation of the committee report. Senator Lynch-Staunton objected to this accelerated consideration of a bill, especially as it occurred during the Routine of Business. The Senator has asked me as Speaker to rule out of order these requests for leave because, in his view, such requests distort the meaning of Routine Proceedings and deprive Senators of an opportunity to debate a bill which would normally have taken place the next sitting day.
While I was prepared to give my decision before today, I decided to wait until now as a matter of courtesy to Senator Lynch-Staunton. This seemed to be the more suitable course to follow given that the ruling does not affect any matter currently before the Senate. In addition, the extra time taken in preparing this ruling has allowed me an opportunity to explain in greater detail some elements of our practice with respect to leave which I thought useful to bring to the attention of all Honourable Senators.
Let me point out that I did not take from Senator Lynch-Staunton's point of order that he wanted me to rule out of order what occurred on February 10. It is far too late for this. As I indicated at the beginning of the sitting on Tuesday, February 15, Bill C-14 has already received Royal Assent and is now law. The real objection of Senator Lynch- Staunton, as I understand it, is that asking for leave as happened on February 10 is contrary to good practice and, consequently, as Speaker, I should use my authority to keep it from happening again.
Two other Senators participated in the discussion on this point of order. Senator Rompkey, the Deputy Leader of the Government, indicated his surprise at events of February 10; it had not been planned. However, he also observed that in the final analysis, the Senate is the master of its fate and, if leave is given, then business can be conducted outside the boundaries of usual practices as governed by the rules.
Senator Robichaud made the same point in his intervention. While he agreed that the quick consideration of a bill is not normally the best approach, once leave is sought and granted, without any objection from any Senator then present, the Senate can dispose of the bill in this way. According to the Senator, there is no reason to believe that what happened was an error in procedure.
I want to begin by thanking the Senators who spoke to the point of order. In the time since this matter was raised by Senator Lynch-Staunton, I have had an opportunity to review the Debates of the Senate of Thursday, February 10, the relevant passages from parliamentary authorities, particularly in Beauchesne's and Marleau and Montpetit. I have also benefited from research of past instances in the Journals of the Senate when similar events have occurred. As well, I have re-read a ruling dated November 2, 1999 that was given by my predecessor, Speaker Molgat, on a similar matter. Having considered all this information, I am prepared to give my ruling.
As Senator Lynch-Staunton pointed out the daily Routine of Business is a class of parliamentary proceedings where the Senate deals with items that enable it, by and large, to organize its Orders of the Day for subsequent sittings. Thus, for example, during the Routine of Business, notices of motions or inquiries are given, petitions for private bills are received, and committee reports are presented or tabled. All of these items are to be taken up at a future sitting day depending on which rule applies.
The Rules of the Senate are clear as to the order and sequence of the Routine of Business. Rule 23(7) also stipulates that the time of the Senate in handling these items is limited to 30 minutes at which time I, as Speaker, must call Question Period.
Thus far, I have described what the Senate does as a matter of course when it follows standard practice. This flow of business, however, can be altered by a suspension of the rules by leave of the Senate. Rule 3 states that "any rule or part thereof may be suspended without notice by leave of the Senate''.
This in fact, is what happened on February 10. Under "Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees'', the second rubric of the Routine of Business, the Chair of the Committee on Aboriginal People, Senator Sibbeston, presented the report on Bill C-14 without amendment. In accordance with rule 97(4), I then asked when shall the bill be read a third time. Senator Sibbeston was prepared to move the routine motion for third reading at the next sitting, but before I put his motion, Senator St. Germain suggested that the bill be given third reading now in view of "exceptionally special circumstances''. In making this request, Senator St. Germain indicated that the Leadership of the Opposition had been consulted. For his part, Senator Austin, the Leader of the Government, stated that he was also prepared to see the bill passed immediately. Accordingly, I asked if the Senate would grant leave for this. Once it was clear that the Senate had consented, Senator Sibbeston proceeded to move third reading of Bill C-14, seconded by Senator St. Germain. The motion was adopted immediately and so the bill passed.
There was nothing out of order in this, though I acknowledge that it is an infrequent event. Within the past dozen years, three examples have been found in the Journals. Two instances occurred in 1994; another happened in 1998. All three bills were adopted at third reading with leave immediately following the presentation of the committee report.
Of course, none of these instances, including that of February 10, constitute a precedent. By definition, what occurs by leave can never be a precedent; it can never be considered binding on the Senate, obliging it to follow what was done by leave as if it were a rule. Nonetheless, the earlier examples confirm that a request for leave can legitimately be made and, if accepted, can result, as was seen with Bill C-14, in the immediate consideration of the bill at third reading. There is nothing that I can do as Speaker to prevent this from happening if it is the will of the Senate to proceed in this way.
Finally, I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate an explanation about the nature or impact of such leave as it relates to the Routine of Business. In a ruling that Speaker Molgat made on November 2, 1999, he explained that whenever the Senate agrees to grant leave "now'' either for the third reading of a bill, the adoption of a committee report, or a notice of motion, it is agreeing to consider a motion that is debatable. Whether or not an actual debate takes place is immaterial to the consequences of the decision to proceed this way. As Speaker Molgat explained "in agreeing to grant leave and put the question, the Senate has, in effect, stepped out of the Routine of Business for the duration of the debate until it is decided or adjourned''. If debate is engaged, "the restrictions imposed by rule 23(1) preventing points of order or questions of privilege during the Routine of Business do not apply''. It is important to keep this in mind because it addresses one of the objections raised by Senator Lynch-Staunton through his point of order.
Accordingly, it is my ruling that what occurred with respect to Bill C-14 on Thursday, February 10 was out of the ordinary, but not out of order. It was the unanimous will of the Senate to proceed as it did and, I as Speaker, have no authority to prevent the proceeding or to overrule it.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Third reading of Bill C-36, An Act to change the boundaries of the Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi electoral districts.
The Honourable Senator Losier-Cool moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finnerty, that the bill be read the third time.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the third time and passed.
Ordered, That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House that the Senate has passed this bill, without amendment.
Third reading of Bill C-6, An Act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain Acts.
The Honourable Senator Banks moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, that the bill be read the third time.
A Point of Order was raised with respect to the necessity for Royal Consent in reference to Bill C-6.
After debate,
The Speaker reserved his decision.
The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Banks, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, for the third reading of Bill C-6, An Act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain Acts.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Banks moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Ordered, That Orders No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 under OTHER BUSINESS, Reports of Committees, be brought forward
Consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, (study on the rights and freedoms of children—extension of reporting date) presented in the Senate on February 22, 2005.
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nolin, that the report be adopted.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, (study on human rights obligations—extension of reporting date) presented in the Senate on February 22, 2005.
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, (study on the Federal Public Service—extension of reporting date) presented in the Senate on February 22, 2005.
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (study on an invitation to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs—extension of reporting date) presented in the Senate on February 22, 2005.
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Order No. 3 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Chaput, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mercer, for the second reading of Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Telefilm Canada Act and another Act.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Chaput moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson, that the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Order No. 5 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 10 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Private Bills
Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees
Orders No. 5 and 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Orders No. 69 (motion), 11, 2, 13 (inquiries), 58 (motion), 4 (inquiry), 78 (motion) and 6 (inquiry) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, for the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:
That pursuant to Rule 95(3)(a), the Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act be authorized to meet during periods that the Senate stands adjourned for a period exceeding one week.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 28(2):
Summaries of the Corporate Plan for the period 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 and of the Operating and Capital Budgets of the Canadian Dairy Commission for the dairy year ending July 31, 2005, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4).—Sessional Paper No. 1/38-401.
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 p.m. the Senate was continued until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.)
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
The name of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Cools (February 22).