Journals of the Senate
56 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2007, Canada
Journals of the Senate
1st Session, 39th Parliament
Issue 67
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Speaker pro tempore
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Biron, Bryden, Callbeck, Carney, Carstairs, Champagne, Chaput, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Downe, Dyck, Eggleton, Fairbairn, Fortier, Fox, Fraser, Furey, Gill, Goldstein, Gustafson, Harb, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Joyal, Keon, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lovelace Nicholas, Mahovlich, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Merchant, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pépin, Peterson, Phalen, Poulin (Charette), Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, St. Germain, Sibbeston, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Trenholme Counsell
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, *Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Biron, Bryden, Callbeck, Carney, Carstairs, Champagne, Chaput, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Downe, Dyck, Eggleton, Fairbairn, Fortier, Fox, Fraser, Furey, Gill, Goldstein, *Grafstein, Gustafson, Harb, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Joyal, Keon, *Kinsella, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lovelace Nicholas, Mahovlich, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Merchant, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Murray, *Nancy Ruth, Nolin, Oliver, Pépin, Peterson, Phalen, Poulin (Charette), *Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, St. Germain, Sibbeston, *Smith, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Trenholme Counsell
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Furey presented the following:
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its
TWELFTH REPORT
On March 7, 2005, the Senate adopted the Fourth Report of the Committee which approved the creation of a special fund, subject to a review after one year, to help senators meet exceptional funding needs or special circumstances.
The Committee now recommends that the special fund be eliminated and that the remaining amount in the fund be distributed to the Research and Office Expenses Budgets of those senators who did not receive an allocation from the special fund.
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE J. FUREY
Chair
The Honourable Senator Furey moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dallaire, 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.
Introduction and First Reading of Government bills
A message was brought from the House of Commons with a Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), to which it desires the concurrence of the Senate.
The bill was read the first time.
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, 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.
Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations
The Honourable Senator Milne tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, respecting its participation at the Parliamentary Mission to the Country that will hold the next European Union Presidency, held in Berlin, Germany, from September 27 to 29, 2006, and its participation at the Fourth Part of the 2006 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held in Strasbourg, France, from October 2 to 6, 2006.—Sessional Paper No. 1/39-653.
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE'S RULING
I am ready to rule on the point of order raised yesterday by Senator Comeau when adjournment of Bill S-222 was proposed.
At the end of the initial speeches on the bill, Senator Moore moved that further debate be adjourned to the next sitting and that the item stand in the name of Senator Jaffer.
Senator Comeau rose on a point of order to argue that, since Senator Jaffer did not appear to be present at the time, the item should not be adjourned in her name. This led to a discussion of the practice of adjourning an Order of the Day in the name of a particular senator. During this discussion some senators asserted that items have often been adjourned in the name of another senator, while others considered this a questionable practice.
After discussion on the point of order, the item was adjourned by Senator Moore, seconded by Senator Robichaud, as indicated in yesterday's Journals, at page 1016. Given the different views that had been expressed, I indicated that I would address the matter in a ruling. Senator Fraser then rose on another point of order to express concerns about a recent tendency to refer to absent senators and to encourage senators to avoid this in the future, a point that Senator Comeau noted reinforced his position on the original point of order. I indicated that I would also address this issue in the same ruling.
Let me begin by reading rule 49 in its entirety:
49.(1) A motion to adjourn a debate on an item, other than an item of government business, shall be deemed to be a motion to postpone that debate to the day specified in the motion, or, if no day is specified, to the next sitting day. In either case, the said item shall stand on the Order Paper in the name of the Senator who moved the adjournment, or another Senator, if so indicated.
(2) A motion to adjourn the debate on any item of government business shall be deemed to be a motion to postpone that debate to the next sitting day. In this case, the item shall not stand on the Orders of the Day or the Order Paper in any Senator's name and may be called pursuant to rule 27(1).
This rule is key in dealing with adjournment of debate in a senator's name, and it leads to conclusions of relevance, depending on whether the item is government business or not.
With respect to government business, under rule 49(2) items are adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate and do not stand in the name of any particular senator. In practice, a senator's name will sometimes be specified when the motion for the adjournment of an item of government business is proposed, but this is of no procedural weight and the name does not appear on the Order Paper. Instead, it is an indication that a particular senator is interested in speaking to the matter.
In the case of an item of other business, rule 49(1) is clear that, when adjourned, it will stand either in the name of the senator who adjourned debate or in the name of another senator, if so specified. Accordingly, it is acceptable to move a motion to adjourn debate in another senator's name. The rules allow this, and practice confirms it. Indeed even substantive motions, which can trigger debate, are sometimes moved by one senator on behalf of another, as is the case with motion 131, currently on the Order Paper, which was moved by Senator Tkachuk for Senator Segal. Similarly, rule 56(3) allows for notice by one senator for another senator not then present.
Of course, adjournment by one senator in the name of another will most frequently occur if the senator in whose name the item is adjourned happens to be away from the chamber. A senator who expects to be absent, but who wishes to speak to an item, may ask a colleague to adjourn debate in the absent senator's name.
This does not mean that the senator in whose name an item is adjourned has a monopoly on speaking to it next and can therefore hold up debate. This matter was addressed in a ruling by Speaker Molgat on December 10, 1996, which appears at pages 744 and 745 of the Journals. This ruling noted that, although an item of other business may be adjourned in a particular senator's name, this "...does not give that Senator alone the right to decide if that item will be proceeded with, though it has sometimes appeared that way because of the courtesy usually extended by the Senate towards the Senator who adjourned the item.'' The ruling goes on to note that "Should the Senate decide to debate the item, the Senator who had adjourned it will usually be accorded the opportunity to speak first; otherwise any other Senator will be recognized to speak.'' Therefore, a senator in whose name an item is adjourned has the right to speak first when it is next debated. If, however, another senator is ready to speak and the senator in whose name the item stands is not, the senator who is ready to speak has every right to do so.
As to the matter of referring to senators who may or may not be present, House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit is clear, at page 188, that "the Speaker has traditionally discouraged Members from signalling the absence of another Member from the House because `there are many places that Members have to be in order to carry out all of the obligations that go with their office'.'' This is just as much the case for senators. Similarly, Beauchesne's, at page 141, citation 481(c) of the sixth edition, prohibits reference to the presence or absence of specific members. This general caution applies most clearly to debate, and I should note that the very wording of rule 49(1) does provide the basis for an exception when dealing with motions to adjourn debate, as I outlined earlier. In other cases, where our rules require the recognition of a senator's absence, such as rule 11 under which the clerk must inform the Senate of the Speaker's unavoidable absence before the Speaker pro tempore takes the chair at the beginning of a sitting, reference to this absence is entirely appropriate, indeed required. Moreover, information about attendance is readily available in the Journals and the Attendance Registry — in fact the Senate has a comprehensive regime for tracking senators' work. Nonetheless, senators should be cautious in referring to the absence of members in debate.
In conclusion, I find that the proposal to adjourn debate on Bill S-222 in the name of another senator was in order.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nolin, for the third reading of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, that Bill S-3 be not now read a third time but that it be amended as follows:
In clause 4,
(a) on page 14, by adding after line 24 the following:
"(1.1) If the Chief of the Defence Staff is considering making a determination, he or she shall notify the Minister before making the determination.
(1.2) The Chief of the Defence Staff may make a determination only if he or she is of the opinion that the operational reasons are of such an exigent nature as to outweigh the public interest in applying the provisions of this Act that would, but for the determination, be applicable in the circumstances.'' ; and
(b) on page 16,
(i) by adding after line 3 the following:
"(6) The Chief of the Defence Staff shall, every 15 days after making a determination under this section, consider whether the operational reasons continue to apply and, if they do not, shall revise the date on which the operational reasons cease to apply accordingly.
(7) Subsection (6) applies until the date that is provided in the notice under subsection (4) as the date on which the operational reasons cease to apply, unless a revision is made under subsection (6).
(8) If a revision is made under subsection (6),
(a) the Chief of the Defence Staff shall, without delay, notify the Provost Marshal of the revision;
(b) the Provost Marshal shall, without delay, notify the person who is the subject of the determination of the revision;
(c) in the case of a determination made under paragraph (1)(b) or (c), the Provost Marshal shall, without delay, notify the persons referred to in paragraph (5)(a) or (b) of the revision and of the revised date on which the suspension of the time limit or proceeding ceases to apply; and
(d) a person who registers information for the Provost Marshal shall revise the date that was registered under paragraph 8.2(7)(a) of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act as the date on which the suspension of the time limit, proceeding or obligation ceases to apply.'', and
(ii) by adding after line 31 the following:
"227.171 (1) The Chief of the Defence Staff shall, within 30 days after the end of each year, submit a report to the Minister on the operation of sections 227.15 and 227.16 for that year that includes
(a) the number of determinations that were made under each of paragraphs 227.15(1)(a) to (d) and the duration of the suspension of the time limit, proceeding or obligation resulting from each determination; and
(b) the number of determinations that were made under subsection 227.16(1) and the number of persons who were exempted under subsection 227.16(4) as a result of each determination.
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.''.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cowan moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, that further debate on the motion in amendment be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator LeBreton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, for the second reading of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure).
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Milne moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cowan, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted, on division.
Orders No. 3 and 4 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator St. Germain, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Segal, that the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples entitled Negotiation or Confrontation: it's Canada's Choice, tabled in the Senate on December 12, 2006, be adopted and that, pursuant to Rule 131(2), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Minister of Justice being identified as Ministers responsible for responding to the report.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 3 to 7 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, for the Honourable Senator Segal, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be authorized to examine and report on the effectiveness of Canada's promotion of democratic development abroad; the role of the Parliament of Canada in this context; and
That the Committee shall present its final report no later than December 31, 2007, and that the Committee shall retain all powers necessary to publicize the findings of the Committee as set forth in its final report until March 31, 2008.
After debate,
In amendment, the Honourable Senator Corbin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, that the motion be amended by deleting at the end of the first paragraph the word "and'', and by adding after the first paragraph the words "That the Committee be authorized to travel outside Canada for the purpose of its study; and''.
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that the debate on the motion in amendment be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 3, 17 and 6 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the State of Literacy in Canada, which will give every Senator in this Chamber the opportunity to speak out on an issue in our country that is often forgotten.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator LeBreton, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 19, 11 (inquiries), 5, 81 (motions), 18, 23, 9 (inquiries), 92 (motion), 8, 12 (inquiries), 104 and 119 (motions) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to:
(a) Remembrance Day, November 11, 2006, the 88th Anniversary of the end of the First World War, the Day to honour and to remember those noble and brave souls who fought, and those who fell, in the service of the cause of our freedom and in the cause of the British and Allied victory over Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the vast and powerful Ottoman Empire, known as the Ottoman Turks; and
(b) the Arabian theatre of the First World War fought in the Arab regions of the Ottoman Empire, particularly Arabia and Syria, and to the brave and valiant Arab peoples, the children of Ishmael, who fought and fell on the side of Great Britain and the Allies in a war operation known to history as the Great Arab Revolt, June 1916 to October 1918, in which the Arab peoples from the Hijaz, the Najd, the Yemen, Mesopotamia and Syria, and their leaders, engaged and defeated the mighty Ottoman Turks, the rulers and sovereign power over the Arab peoples, expelling them from the Arab regions, which these Ottoman Turks had occupied and dominated for several centuries; and
(c) the great Arab Leaders in the Arabian theatre of war, particularly the revered Hashemite, a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed, the Sharif Hussein bin Ali, the Emir of Mecca, the Holy City, and his four sons the Emirs, Ali, Abdullah, Feisal, and Zeid, who though high office holders under the Ottoman Turks, repudiated their allegiance to the Ottoman Sultan, and led their peoples in the Arab Revolt, both in support of and supported by Great Britain, whose high representatives had promised them independence for the Arabs; and
(d) the endurance and valour of the Arab fighters, adept with their camels, to the desert and Bedouin warriors, from the desert tribes, the tribesmen and tribal chiefs such as Auda abu Tayi of the Howeitat tribe, and also to the Arab soldiers and officers of the Ottoman Turkish Army who joined the Arab Revolt to oust the Turks and to support the British, and to the harsh and inhospitable conditions of the deserts, the scorching heat of the days and the frigid cold of the nights, and to the Arab campaigns and victories including their capture of Akaba, Wejh, Dara and Damascus from the Ottoman Turks; and
(e) other Arab leaders, including the Emir Abd-al-Aziz of Najd, known as the Ibn Saud, and the Idrisi Emir of Asir, who had offered resistance to Ottoman domination even before the war, and to General Edmund Allenby, the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces with headquarters in Cairo, Egypt, who noted the indispensable contribution of the Arab peoples to British and Allied victory; and
(f) the Remembrance of the Arab peoples, the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar, the bond servant of Abraham's wife Sarah, and to the Remembrance of all the Arab peoples who sacrificed and suffered tremendously, often afflicted by hunger and thirst, yet who contributed to making Allied victory, our Canadian victory, our freedom from domination, possible. Lest we forget, we shall remember them.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Gill, calling the attention of the Senate to the Government of Canada's position on the First Peoples on the national and international level.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Tardif moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cowan, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Di Nino moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk:
That the Senate urge the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Dalai Lama, notwithstanding their differences on Tibet's historical relationship with China, to continue their dialogue in a forward-looking manner that will lead to pragmatic solutions that respect the Chinese constitutional framework, the territorial integrity of China and fulfill the aspirations of the Tibetan people for a unified and genuinely autonomous Tibet.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Munson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Merchant, 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 Bacon moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report on the objectives, operation and governance of the Canadian Television Fund, and
That the Committee submit its final report no later than June 30, 2007.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 3:58 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 Agriculture and Forestry
The names of the Honourable Senators Meighen, St. Germain and Trenholme Counsell substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Gustafson, Tkachuk and Callbeck (February 6).
The names of the Honourable Senators Gustafson and Tkachuk substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Meighen and St. Germain (February 7).
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The names of the Honourable Senators Nancy Ruth and Di Nino substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Segal and Oliver (February 6).
Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications
The names of the Honourable Senators Fairbairn and Meighen substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Carstairs and Eyton (February 6).
Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The name of the Honourable Senator Cowan substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Smith (February 6).
The name of the Honourable Senator Smith substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Cowan (February 7).
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology
The name of the Honourable Senator Chaput substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Cordy (February 7).