Journals of the Senate
55 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2006, Canada
Journals of the Senate
1st Session, 39th Parliament
Issue 12
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Bryden, Callbeck, Champagne, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Eyton, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fortier, Fox, Fraser, Gill, Goldstein, Grafstein, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Keon, Kinsella, Lapointe, Lavigne, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lovelace Nicholas, Mahovlich, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Mercer, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nancy Ruth, Nolin, Peterson, Phalen, Plamondon, Poulin (Charette), Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, St. Germain, Segal, Sibbeston, Smith, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Watt, Zimmer
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, *Andreychuk, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, *Baker, Bryden, Callbeck, *Carstairs, Champagne, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Eyton, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fortier, Fox, Fraser, Gill, Goldstein, Grafstein, *Harb, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Keon, Kinsella, *Kirby, Lapointe, Lavigne, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lovelace Nicholas, Mahovlich, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Mercer, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nancy Ruth, Nolin, *Oliver, Peterson, Phalen, Plamondon, Poulin (Charette), Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, St. Germain, Segal, Sibbeston, Smith, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, *Trenholme Counsell, Watt, Zimmer
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Pursuant to rule 43(7), the Honourable Senator Ringuette gave notice that she would raise a question of privilege concerning misleading statements made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate on May 3, 2006.
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations
The Honourable Senator Cordy tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the 51st Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, held in Copenhagen, Denmark, from November 11 to 15, 2005. —Sessional Paper No. 1/39-137
The Honourable Senator De Bané, P.C., tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Delegation of the "Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie'' (APF), respecting its participation at the Bureau Meeting of the APF, held in Noumea, New Caledonia, from February 2 to 4, 2006. —Sessional Paper No. 1/39-138
Report of the Canadian Delegation of the "Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie'' (APF), respecting its participation at the Education, Communication and Cultural Affairs Committee of the APF, held in Antananarivo, Madagascar, March 21 and 22, 2006.—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-139
Report of the Canadian Delegation of the "Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie'' (APF), respecting its participation at the Conference of Presidents of the Americas Region, held in Augusta, United States, March 22 and 23, 2006. —Sessional Paper No. 1/39-140
The Honourable Senator Losier-Cool tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Delegation of the "Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie'' (APF), respecting its participation at the Co-operation and Development Committee of the APF, held in Delémont, Switzerland, from March 14 to 16, 2006.—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-141
The Honourable Senator Di Nino tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Winter Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, held in Vienna, Austria, February 23 and 24, 2006.—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-142
Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the International Election Observation Mission of the Parliamentary Elections in Ukraine, held on March 26, 2006.—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-143.
SPEAKER'S RULING
Last Wednesday, May 3, a point of order was raised by Senator Hays, the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to the conduct of Question Period. As I understand it, his objection had to do with the fact that the Leader of the Government took time that day to respond to questions which had been taken as notice by the Deputy Leader of the Government during a previous Question Period. Senator Hays asked me to rule on the point of order so as to provide guidance in the future for Question Period.
Several other Senators spoke to this point of order. As I stated last week, I appreciate the participation of Senators in these discussions. I find it very useful. In carrying out my responsibility, however, I must also take into consideration the rules and practices of this House. Indeed, rule 18(2) obliges me to state the reasons as well as any rule or other written authority when called upon to decide a point of order.
With respect to the basic complaint of the point of order, that questions asked at a previous sitting ought not to be answered during Question Period, I find that there is limited guidance based on the Rules of the Senate. These rules provide for thirty minutes every sitting for the purpose of posing questions to the Leader of the Government, any Minister or to committee chairs about the work of their committees. According to rule 24(4) there is to be no debate though brief explanatory remarks may be made in asking and answering questions. Rule 24(3) states that when it is not possible to answer a question immediately, the Senator to whom the question was asked may take the question as notice. A literal reading of this rule might suggest that the presence in the Chamber of the Senator to whom a question may be asked is a conditio sine qua non of this rule.
However, in practice the rule operates two ways. More frequently, it is applied when the Leader of the Government, a Minister or a committee chair, takes a question as notice. Less often, the Deputy Leader or a committee member takes as notice a question intended for the Leader or a committee chair. This is what occurred last week.
I would also point out that the Senate sometimes foregoes Question Period when the Leader of the Government is unable to be present in the Chamber.
Delayed Answers are called at the end of the thirty minutes allowed for Question Period. It is at this time that answers to written questions on the Order Paper are presented. This is also when oral questions asked at a previous sitting can be answered. In either case, dealing with written or oral questions, the response is given in writing, one copy is tabled with Hansard and another is given to the Senator who asked the question. Much of this has come about through practice and through rulings of the Chair.
A year ago, May 3, 2005, my predecessor, Speaker Hays, made a ruling related to an element of Delayed Answers. On that occasion, the Speaker ruled on a point of order challenging an instance when the Leader of the Government, then Senator Austin, had used Delayed Answers to provide oral responses to questions that had first been asked from a Question Period of an earlier sitting. Reviewing this incident, the Speaker explained that "What occurred April 19, 2005 does not fall squarely within this pattern [of accepted practice]. Senator Austin provided an oral answer to a question that had been asked originally on April 13 by Senator Comeau. In making his answer, to which there was no written version, Senator Austin also suggested that he was prepared to answer additional questions. On both counts this was a departure from the usual practice.''
Honourable Senators, what occurred last Wednesday seems to me to fall outside of our usual practices. The rationale for prohibiting debate during Question Period and for creating Delayed Answers is due, in part, to the limited time given to Question Period. The thirty minutes allotted for questions and answers is to promote the immediate exchange of information about the policies of the Government or the work of a committee. Giving answers during Question Period that had been taken as notice at a previous sitting, detracts from this purpose and is a departure from established practice. Any response to questions asked at a previous sitting should be treated under Delayed Answers in the same way that all written questions are answered. These answers should be in writing with copies for the Table as well as for the Senator who asked the question. Upon request, these written answers can be read aloud so that they are incorporated into the Debates.
It is my ruling that the point of order is sustained. My purpose in making this ruling is primarily to explain how Question Period and Delayed Answers should be followed. I would expect that this problem would not come up again.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Third reading of Bill C-8, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Segal, 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.
Order No. 2 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Motions
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Champagne, P.C.:
That television cameras be permitted in the Senate Chamber to record the Royal Assent Ceremony on Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 4:30 p.m., with the least possible disruption of the proceedings.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lapointe, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chaput, for the second reading of Bill S-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes).
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on division.
Orders No. 8 to 12 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Second reading of Bill S-208, An Act to require the Minister of the Environment to establish, in co-operation with the provinces, an agency with the power to identify and protect Canada's watersheds that will constitute sources of drinking water in the future.
The Honourable Senator Grafstein moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., that the bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau, in the name of the Honourable Senator Johnson, moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Champagne, P.C., 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
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Orders No. 3 (inquiry), 53, 3, 10 and 7 (motions) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
At 4 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on April 6, 2006, the Senate adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 28(2):
Report of the National Arts Centre, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2005, pursuant to the National Arts Centre Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-3, sbs. 17(2).—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-136.