Journals of the Senate
58 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2009, Canada
Journals of the Senate
2nd Session, 40th Parliament
Issue 52
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Angus, Baker, Banks, Brazeau, Brown, Callbeck, Campbell, Carignan, Carstairs, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, Demers, Di Nino, Dickson, Downe, Dyck, Eaton, Eggleton, Fairbairn, Finley, Fox, Fraser, Frum, Furey, Gerstein, Grafstein, Greene, Harb, Hervieux-Payette, Housakos, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Lang, Lapointe, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, MacDonald, Mahovlich, Martin, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Mercer, Merchant, Milne, Mockler, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nancy Ruth, Neufeld, Nolin, Ogilvie, Patterson, Peterson, Plett, Prud'homme, Raine, Ringuette, Rivard, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, Seidman, Sibbeston, Smith, St. Germain, Stewart Olsen, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Wallace, Watt, Zimmer
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Angus, Baker, Banks, Brazeau, Brown, Callbeck, Campbell, Carignan, Carstairs, *Champagne, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, Demers, Di Nino, Dickson, Downe, Dyck, Eaton, Eggleton, Fairbairn, Finley, Fox, Fraser, Frum, Furey, Gerstein, Grafstein, Greene, Harb, Hervieux-Payette, Housakos, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Lang, Lapointe, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, MacDonald, Mahovlich, Martin, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Mercer, Merchant, Milne, Mockler, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nancy Ruth, Neufeld, Nolin, Ogilvie, *Oliver, Patterson, Peterson, Plett, Prud'homme, Raine, Ringuette, Rivard, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, Seidman, Sibbeston, Smith, St. Germain, Stewart Olsen, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Wallace, Watt, Zimmer
The first list records senators present in the Senate Chamber during the course of the sitting.
An asterisk in the second list indicates a senator who, while not present during the sitting, was in attendance to business, as defined in subsections 8(2) and (3) of the Senators Attendance Policy.
PRAYERS
INTRODUCTION OF THE CLERK OF THE SENATE
The Honourable the Speaker informed the Senate that a Commission under the Great Seal had been granted to Dr. Gary William O'Brien, appointing him Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments.
The said Commission was then read by one of the clerks at the table, as follows:—
MICHAËLLE JEAN
(G.S.)
CANADA
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
TO
Gary William O'Brien,
of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario,
GREETING:
KNOW YOU that, reposing special trust and confidence in your loyalty, integrity and ability, We, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, did, on the ninth day of September in the year of Our Lord two thousand and nine and in the fifty-eighth year of Our Reign, constitute and appoint you,
GARY WILLIAM O'BRIEN
CLERK OF THE SENATE AND CLERK OF
THE PARLIAMENTS.
TO HAVE, hold, exercise and enjoy the office of Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments unto you, Gary William O'Brien, with all the powers, rights, authority, privileges, profits, emoluments and advantages unto that office of right and by law appertaining during Our Pleasure for a term of seven years, effective the sixteenth day of September in the year of Our Lord two thousand and nine.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed.
WITNESS:
Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Michaëlle Jean, Chancellor and Principal Companion of Our Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of Our Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of Our Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
AT OUR GOVERNMENT HOUSE, in Our City of Ottawa, this fifteenth day of September in the year of Our Lord two thousand and nine and in the fifty-eighth year of Our Reign.
BY COMMAND,
RICHARD DICERNI
Deputy Registrar General of Canada
JOHN H. SIMS
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
The Honourable the Speaker informed the Senate that by the usage of Parliament the Clerk of the Senate is required to take the Oath of Office before the Honourable the Speaker of the Senate.
The Clerk of the Senate then took and subscribed the Oath of Office, as follows:
Ye shall be true and faithful, and troth ye shall bear to Our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and to Her Heirs and Successors; Ye shall nothing know that shall be prejudicial to Her Highness, the Crown, Estate, and Dignity Royal, but that you shall resist it to your power, and with all speed you shall advertise Her Excellency the Governor General thereof, or at least some of Her Council, in such wise as the same may come to Her Knowledge. Ye shall also well and truly serve Her Highness in the Office of Clerk of the Senate of Canada, to attend upon the Senate of Canada, making true entries and records of the things done and passed in the same. Ye shall keep secret all such matters as shall be treated in the said Senate, and not disclose the same before they shall be published, but to such as they ought to be disclosed unto; and generally Ye shall well and truly do and execute all things belonging to you to be done appertaining to the Office of Clerk of the said Senate. As God you help.
GARY WILLIAM O'BRIEN
Clerk of the Senate
Sworn this 16th day of September, 2009, before me.
NOËL A. KINSELLA
Speaker of the Senate
The Honourable the Speaker informed the Senate that a Commission under the Great Seal had been issued to Dr. Gary William O'Brien, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, appointing him a Commissioner to administer the Oath of Allegiance to Members of the Senate and also to take and receive their Declarations of Qualification.
The said Commission is as follows:—
MICHAËLLE JEAN
(G.S.)
CANADA
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
JOHN H. SIMS,
Deputy Attorney General
TO Gary William O'Brien, of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario,
GREETING:
KNOW YOU that, reposing trust and confidence in your loyalty, integrity and ability, We have assigned, constituted and appointed and by these Presents do assign, constitute and appoint you,
GARY WILLIAM O'BRIEN
Our Commissioner to tender and administer to and take from all and every person or persons who is or are appointed a Member of the Senate of Canada the Oath of Allegiance contained in the fifth schedule to the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Declaration of Qualification contained in the same schedule.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said powers and authorities unto you, Gary William O'Brien, during Our Pleasure and your tenure of office as Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed.
WITNESS:
Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Michaëlle Jean, Chancellor and Principal Companion of Our Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of Our Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of Our Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
AT OUR GOVERNMENT HOUSE, in Our City of Ottawa, this fifteenth day of September in the year of Our Lord two thousand and nine and in the fifty-eighth year of Our Reign.
BY COMMAND,
RICHARD DICERNI,
Deputy Registrar General of Canada
Tribute was paid to Mr. Paul C. Bélisle, former Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, who retired on September 15, 2009.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator LeBreton, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cowan:
That the Senate desires to record their deep appreciation of the distinguished service rendered by Mr. Paul C. Bélisle as Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments; and
That in acknowledgement of the dignity, dedication and profound learning with which he has graced the office, he be designated an Honourary Officer of this house with an entrée to the Senate and a seat at the table on occasions of ceremony.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations
The Honourable Senator Milne tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas respecting its participation at the 39thRegular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, held in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on June 2 and 3, 2009.—Sessional Paper No. 2/40-649.
° ° °
The Honourable Senator Day tabled the following:
Report of the Canada-China Legislative Association respecting the Annual Co-Chairs' visit to Beijing, Nanchang (Jiangxi Province), Guangzhou (Guangdong Province) and Shanghai, China, from March 12 to 22, 2009.—Sessional Paper No. 2/40-650.
SPEAKER'S RULING
At this time, I will address the question of privilege raised by Senator Wallin on Tuesday, June 16.
Let me begin by acknowledging what we all know — that the Senate is a special place. It is unique. The Senate is the only second chamber of any legislature in this country. Only here do the three constituent parts of Parliament — the Crown, the Senate, and the House of Commons — actually come together. The Senate has a particular role in our bicameral Parliament. It plays an essential role in the legislative process in Parliament, and also provides a different perspective from the other place in the consideration of public policy. We are all charged with the privilege, and the responsibility, of fulfilling the Senate's important functions in a way that reflects its proper honour and dignity. It is with this reality in mind that I approached this question of privilege.
The matters raised by Senator Wallin largely focussed on events relating to meetings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, of which she is deputy chair, that were held on June 10 and 15. Before addressing the particular issues, it may be noted at this point that her concerns included: ignoring processes established by Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for contracting, interrupting a vote to change committee membership, changing decisions contrary to the Rules, summarily dismissing a point of order, refusing to allow a vote when a ruling was appealed, failing to guarantee a minority presence at meetings of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, and rescheduling activities without previous consultations.
Senator Wallin felt she had been prevented from performing her responsibilities as deputy chair, and that other senators had been unable to participate freely in deciding the committee's business. As a result, Senator Wallin feared that the National Security and Defence Committee was "being rendered dysfunctional and may be setting a dangerous precedent for the Senate as a whole.''
The chair of the committee, Senator Kenny, disagreed. He noted that the National Security and Defence Committee, Internal Economy, and the Senate itself had all approved a budget application providing for the hiring of the contractors. He rejected the claim that the full committee can be excluded from involvement in its own contracting decisions, asserting that "When the full committee is seized with an issue, that decision takes precedence over the subcommittee,'' since committees are "their own masters.'' He acknowledged that the committee had voted on the issue of contracts more than once, but that this had been done for greater certainty. Senator Kenny noted that committees normally function less formally than the Senate. Consequently, they sometimes change or adjust previous decisions, and he considered that this is what happened in relation to the dates for travel and the size of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, usually called the steering committee.
A number of other senators also participated in discussion. Senator Moore asked whether the question of privilege had been raised at the earliest opportunity. Senator Tkachuk, for his part, echoed the worry expressed by Senator Wallin about the failure to follow contracting processes set by Internal Economy. He also emphasized the importance of collaboration, consultation, and cooperation in developing committee work plans. Senator St. Germain, in turn, called "on all honourable senators to work towards a resolution.''
Senator Fraser suggested that it would be more appropriate to approach Internal Economy about the disagreement involving processes it has established. She reminded senators that steering committees of five members are not unprecedented, a point later repeated by Senator Banks, who also spoke to the general work practices in the National Security and Defence Committee, presenting them in a positive light. He suggested that a committee is, at least when it comes to the parent committee's right to act in the stead of one of its subcommittees, "master of its own procedures.''
In her assessment, Senator Carstairs took the view that the National Security and Defence Committee "is highly dysfunctional.'' As a consequence, the senator suggested that, "Rather than a matter of privilege, ... this should be the purview of the leadership of both sides to sit down and find a way in which this committee be made functional.'' The point of the committee being dysfunctional was taken up again by Senator Lang when he expressed his concerns about these events.
I would like to thank all honourable senators who contributed to the discussion on this question of privilege. This has been a difficult matter. Nonetheless, since it has been brought to the Senate as a question of privilege, I am obliged as Speaker to examine whether a prima facie case has been established. This, in fact, puts me in the position of reviewing the activities of a committee. My colleague in the other place, Speaker Milliken, faced a similar difficulty during the last Parliament. Asked to intervene to restore proper order in a committee, he noted that it is not really the role of the Speaker to act in loco parentis. I agree with his observation. Such a demand is awkward for the Speaker and is not particularly desirable for the Senate. I think all honourable senators understand this.
Let me now turn to the specific issues raised in this case in light of the requirements of our Rules. While committees often operate informally, they remain bound by the Rules of the Senate. Committees cannot follow any procedure whatsoever that they set for themselves. The phrase mutatis mutandis, in the context of our practices, means that the Rules apply in committee, unless they contain an exemption or there is a clear reason why they cannot. While committees are often said to be "masters of their own proceedings,'' this is only true insofar as they comply with the Rules of the Senate.
The first concern that was raised had to do with events surrounding the contracting of committee staff. Senator Wallin made it clear that, as deputy chair, she had sought to establish a dialogue with the chair. She received no response. Instead, motions on the contracts were moved in the committee without prior warning. It was alleged that by adopting these motions the National Security and Defence Committee ignored a directive of Internal Economy.
It is true that on March 12, 2009, Internal Economy decided that its steering committee would be authorized to deal with impasses about contracts and invoices whenever the chair and the deputy chair of the originating committee cannot agree and their steering committee is unable to resolve the issue. However, this decision was not submitted to the Senate for its approval. And this point is significant.
According to the Senate Administrative Rules, Internal Economy cannot deal with legislative or procedural matters, nor can it direct the proceedings of another committee without the express approval of the Senate. Consequently, the directive of March 12, being largely administrative in nature, is outside the range of matters over which the Speaker has direct responsibility.
Rule 96(4), on the other hand, does state that a subcommittee "shall report back to the committee.'' As such, a parent committee always retains control over its subcommittees. This appears to have happened in this instance when the National Security and Defence Committee approved the contracts. All the same, given the confusion of this issue in terms of the boundaries of responsibility, it may merit further examination by the appropriate bodies.
Another point of contention that was raised relates to a change of committee membership at the June 10 meeting, while a vote was already underway, but before the result was announced. Rule 85(4) deals with the process for membership changes, with rule 85(5) requiring that the form be signed by the appropriate leader or a designate. In this case, a photocopied form signed by the Opposition Whip, who has been designated by the Leader of the Opposition, appears to have been used. A key element here is that this change was made while the committee was in the process of voting. While the Rules are silent on this very specific point, rule 66(4) does require that a senator must be within the bar of the Senate when the question is put in order to vote.
Applied to committee, this could be interpreted as requiring that a senator both be in the room and be a member when the question is put. This is supported by citation 818(2) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne, which states that "The doors of the committee room are deemed to be locked while a division is being taken, and the vote of a member not in the room when the question is put will be disallowed.'' The events of June 10 do not seem to be fully in keeping with usual process. It is also true, however, that in accordance with rule 65(2) "In the absence of a request for a standing vote, the decision of the Speaker is final.'' In this case, it seems that the motion was declared carried, and there was no request for a roll call vote. To avoid any possible uncertainty, the question was raised again at the June 15 meeting of the committee, with the motion again being adopted, this time with a recorded vote.
A third issue has to do with the rescission of a motion already carried. To address this point, several of our rules need to be taken into account. Rule 65(5), which substantively repeats section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that "Questions arising in the Senate shall be decided by a majority of voices,'' with the Speaker always having a vote. However, rules 63(2) and 58(2) require a two-thirds majority. Rule 63(2) deals with rescission and states that "An order, resolution, or other decision of the Senate may be rescinded on five days' notice if at least two-thirds of the Senators present vote in favour of its rescission.'' An exception to this is contained in rule 77, which allows the reconsideration of any clause of a bill prior to third reading.
Normally, this regime for voting, and the exceptions to it, would apply to committees. Yet there is a separate, very specific, provision in the Rules stating that decisions in committee are taken by majority vote. Rule 96(1) stipulates that "A question before a select committee shall be decided by majority vote including the vote of the chairman. When the votes are equal, the decision shall be deemed to be in the negative.''
Furthermore, actual rescission motions are infrequent, and it may also be helpful to consider when exactly they might be needed. Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, at page 181 of the 12th edition, explains that
A rescission properly so called has the retrospective effect of annulling or quashing a decision from the time that decision was made as if it had never been made. Rescission motions are therefore rare: it is seldom the intention to achieve that effect.
Thus the issue of when rescission is necessary and how it is done, in the Chamber and in committee, are issues that could benefit from consideration by the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
A fourth issue related to the process to be followed with respect to decisions of the chair in the committee. Rule 18(2) requires "reasons for the decision together with references to the rule or other written authority applicable to the case.'' It is the primary function of a committee chair, like the Speaker here in the Senate, to maintain order and decorum. This is accomplished, in large part, through a neutral and unbiased application of the Rules of the Senate. Points of order should be treated seriously and not dismissed lightly. Like the Speaker, the chair of a committee should avoid any appearance or suggestion of arbitrary action. Instead, he or she is bound by the rules that the Senate has itself established, a requirement explicitly reinforced by rule 96(7).
On at least one occasion, on June 15, both the transcripts and the video record of the meeting show that a member sought to appeal a decision. This appeal was not allowed, although rule 18(4) provides that virtually all rulings are subject to immediate appeal. Even recognizing the somewhat confused nature of proceedings, with a number of senators seeking to speak, not accepting an appeal would be a departure from the customary way of proceeding.
Some other points raised related to the apparent failure to guarantee minority representation on the steering committee and the lack of substantive consultation before proposing that planned committee activities be rescheduled. When committees function normally, and matters are addressed through respectful and collaborative dialogue among senators, these issues tend not to give rise to complaints. While the Rules limit a subcommittee to not more than half the membership of the main committee and set a quorum of three, they are silent on mandatory consultations and obligatory minority representation. That such basic issues have become concerns may be a reflection of the dysfunction mentioned by senators from both sides.
Honourable senators, the issues raised are serious, and I want to thank all again who participated in the debate.
Mindful of the mutual interests of all parties concerned, I took the initiative to meet with the Leaders and Deputy Leaders of both the Government and the Opposition, together with the respective whips, to explore what remedies might be available to reduce tensions and restore the cooperation that is essential to the proper operations of any committee. Given the status that the leaders have as ex officio members of committees, I believe that they are particularly well placed to help resolve the problems raised.
Honourable senators, this matter was specifically raised as a question of privilege. Accordingly, the Speaker must determine whether a prima facie case of privilege can be established based on the criteria stipulated in rule 43(1).
With respect to the first criterion, the earliest opportunity, the concerns relate to issues that have been developing for some time. However, it seems clear that the meeting of June 15 was an important trigger. From this perspective, I am satisfied that the question was raised at the earliest opportunity.
As to the second and fourth criteria, that the matter directly concern a privilege and that it be raised to correct a grave and serious breach, I believe the matters raised by Senator Wallin are in essence issues of order and administration, not privilege. At this stage, it is more appropriate to leave it to the committee itself to resolve these matters. Our tradition is that committees are masters of their own procedures, so long as they act within the bounds of the rules established by the Senate.
With respect to the third criterion, that the question of privilege "be raised to seek a genuine remedy ... for which no other parliamentary process is reasonably available,'' it is true that Senator Wallin has stated her willingness to move an appropriate motion. There are, however, motions which might well have been proposed to address some of the serious issues that have been raised, including one to direct how the committee is to operate or one to guide the conduct of a particular member.
In light of all of the foregoing, it is my finding that a strict application of the criteria established in the Rules of the Senate to evaluate the possible prima facie merits of this question of privilege leads to the conclusion that none exists. However, there is evidence of a lack of order and decorum that is required by these same Rules. All appropriate means available to honourable senators themselves should be used to rectify this matter.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth, for the second reading of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Banks moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, that further debate on the motion 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 Keon, seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino, for the second reading of Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Keon moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallace, 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.
° ° °
Orders No. 3 to 7 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 7 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion by the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Atkins, for the second reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (repeal of fixed election dates).
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau 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.
° ° °
Orders No. 9 to 18 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, for the second reading of Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act (credit rating agency).
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau, for 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.
° ° °
Second reading of Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (retroactivity of retirement and survivor's pensions).
The Honourable Senator Callbeck moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dallaire, that the bill be read the second time.
Debate.
At 4 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on February 10, 2009, 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 Canadian International Trade Tribunal for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, pursuant to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 47 (4th Supp.), s.42.—Sessional Paper No.2/40-643.
Report of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal entitled "Recommendation Regarding St. Geneve (Wide- width Cotton, Flax and Rayon)'' dated August 10, 2009, pursuant to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 47 (4th Supp.), sbs. 21(2).—Sessional Paper No. 2/40-644.
Reports of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2).—Sessional Paper No.2/40- 645.
Reports of the Department of Finance for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2). —Sessional Paper No.2/40-646.
Reports of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2).—Sessional Paper No.2/40- 647.
Reports of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2).—Sessional Paper No.2/40- 648.
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce
The Honourable Senator Raine replaced the Honourable Senator Oliver (September 15, 2009).
Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The Honourable Senator Grafstein replaced the Honourable Senator Jaffer (September 16, 2009).
The Honourable Senator Wallin replaced the Honourable Senator Dickson (September 16, 2009).
The Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis replaced the Honourable Senator Nolin (September 16, 2009).
The Honourable Senator Smith, P.C., was added to the membership of the committee (September 15, 2009).
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The Honourable Senator Banks replaced the Honourable Senator Mitchell (September 16, 2009).