Previous Sittings

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Previous Sittings

Journals of the Senate

Previous Sittings

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Journals of the Senate

Download as PDF

2nd Session, 41st Parliament

Issue 9

Wednesday, October 30, 2013
2:00 p.m.

The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker

The Members convened were:

The Honourable Senators

Andreychuk, Ataullahjan, Baker, Batters, Bellemare, Beyak, Black, Boisvenu, Braley, Brazeau, Buth, Callbeck, Campbell, Carignan, Champagne, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Comeau, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Dagenais, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, Demers, Downe, Doyle, Dyck, Eaton, Eggleton, Enverga, Fortin-Duplessis, Fraser, Frum, Furey, Gerstein, Greene, Hervieux-Payette, Housakos, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Kinsella, Lang, LeBreton, Lovelace Nicholas, MacDonald, Maltais, Manning, Marshall, Martin, Massicotte, McCoy, McInnis, McIntyre, Mercer, Merchant, Meredith, Mitchell, Mockler, Moore, Munson, Neufeld, Ngo, Nolin, Ogilvie, Oh, Patterson, Plett, Poirier, Raine, Ringuette, Rivard, Rivest, Robichaud, Runciman, Segal, Seidman, Seth, Smith (Cobourg), Smith (Saurel), Stewart Olsen, Tannas, Tardif, Tkachuk, Unger, Verner, Wallace, Wallin, Watt, Wells, White

The Members in attendance to business were:

The Honourable Senators

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

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Some Honourable Senators made statements.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Tabling of documents

With leave of the Senate,

The Honourable Senator Brazeau tabled the following:

Copy of a letter, dated May 16, 2013 (and accompanying related email), from Senator Brazeau to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, concerning decisions of the committee.—Sessional Paper No. 2/41-133S.

Copy of a letter, dated June 17, 2013 (and accompanying related email), from Senator Brazeau to all Senators concerning decisions of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.—Sessional Paper No. 2/41-134S.

Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations

The Honourable Senator Champagne, P.C., tabled the following:

Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) respecting its participation at the 29^th Regional Assembly and the Conference of Branch Chairs of the America Region of the APF, held in Quebec City, Quebec, from August 19 to 22, 2013.—Sessional Paper No. 2/41-135.

Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) respecting its participation at the VII La Francophonie Games, held in Nice, France, from September 11 to 14, 2013.—Sessional Paper No. 2/41-136.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Yesterday, after Senator Martin moved Government motion 4, Senator Fraser rose on a point of order. She questioned the propriety of this motion.

Government motion 4 is what can be called a "disposition motion.'' These are motions establishing specific procedures to determine how the Senate will deal with a particular item or items of business. Such motions are uncommon, but a ruling of April 28, 2004, indicated that they are generally in order. That ruling stated that a motion of this type is not a violation of our Rules and practices. As the ruling noted, "Since the Senate has complete control over the disposition of the motion, it maintain[s] its fundamental privilege to determine its own proceedings.''

This particular disposition motion proposes to establish a process to deal with motions 2, 3 and 4 under Other Business. These motions propose to suspend Senators Brazeau, Wallin and Duffy. They were brought forward at the initiative of Senator Carignan. He moved the suspension motions as his own proposals, not as initiatives of the Government. He has been quite clear on this, and proceedings in the Senate have gone forward on that basis.

Any suspension motion is difficult, honourable senators. No senator would deny that. These motions require that the Senate, as a body, consider disciplinary actions. This is part of how we can maintain the reputation of this chamber and public confidence and trust in one of the basic institutions of our system of governance.

Debate on the motions to date has been vigorous and productive. Many senators have participated, and they have done so in a respectful and serious manner. I wish to thank honourable senators. The process has been dynamic, informative and instructive, not repetitive. The debate has captured the attention of the Canadian public. It has provided information that was previously unknown or not well understood, helping us to better appreciate the work that remains to be done to improve our internal administrative operations.

As I noted in a ruling last week, suspension is a mechanism available to the Senate. Our debate has referenced the use of suspension in other Westminster Parliaments, where it has been exercised with caution, so as not to prejudice external proceedings.

In a court of law there are detailed rules and processes to govern proceedings. In considering the matter of suspension, the Senate is following its longstanding parliamentary Rules and procedures. In a parliamentary body like the Senate, with the very word Parliament coming from parler, to speak, we use debate to reach the best possible result. Debate is at the heart of what we do, and it has been the means to explore and evaluate the suspension motions.

Honourable senators, Senator Fraser recognized that disposition motions, although unusual, are available under the practices and procedures of the Senate. She noted the 2004 case to which reference has already been made. Her concern was not about the motion, but the fact that it was brought forward as a Government proposal targeting non- Government business. As such, she asserted, it violates the basic distinction in our Rules between Government Business and Other Business. She characterized this distinction as one of the most important to be found in our Rules. As she explained, a motion can be either a Government motion or a non-Government motion, but it cannot fall into both categories. Senator Fraser argued that, with disposition motion number 4, the Government is seeking to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. She felt this is a dangerous precedent, and must be ruled out of order.

Honourable senators, later, Senator Cowan spoke to support Senator Fraser. He emphasized the importance of respecting Rules and normal processes. He called for caution if the Senate is to lay aside its Rules, practices and precedents. In this vein, he argued, our Rules make a clear distinction between Government and Other Business, giving the Government certain tools to advance its business. The Leader of the Opposition said these provisions should be respected.

For her part, Senator McCoy expressed dislike for the regularity with which the Senate is asked to set aside its Rules and its practices, especially when the effect is to truncate debate artificially. After all, she noted, debate is what we do. Instead, she asked the Speaker to give his guidance as to how the Senate might proceed, and encouraged us to take the necessary time to consider what we are doing.

A number of other senators also questioned whether the time taken in debate thus far is really so extraordinary, given the importance of the issues under discussion.

Senator Martin argued that while the suspension motions are under Other Business, she did not accept that this prevents the Government from proposing a timeline. The Senate can amend, accept or reject the timeline the Government has proposed. Both Senator Martin and, later, Senator Carignan argued that unlimited debate is not always desirable. In particular, Senator Carignan was concerned that while the questions of suspension are pending, the business of the Senate, and particularly Government Business, is being hampered. He suggested that there will be continual questions about the participation of the three senators. For this reason, he argued that a level of certainty is required, to help bring the debate to an end within a reasonable timeframe.

At the very outset, let us be clear that disposition motions are part of our practice. The core issue here is that the proposal by Senator Martin dealing with disposition has been brought forward as a Government motion, though it would determine the course of proceedings on the three suspension motions, which are Other Business.

If the disposition motion is accepted as an item in the category of Government Business, time allocation could be applied to the motion. If the Senate agrees to this, the Government would then be able to limit debate on items in the category of Other Business using specific powers that are now clearly reserved only for Government Business.

Since 1991 the Senate has made a distinction between the categories of Government Business and Other Business.

Honourable senators, Appendix I of the Rules defines Government Business as:

A bill, motion, report or inquiry initiated by the Government. Government business, including items on notice, is contained in a separate category on the Order Paper, and the Leader of the Government or the Deputy Leader may vary the order in which these items are called.

Other Business, on the other hand, is:

Items of non-Government business on the Order Paper and Notice Paper. These may include bills, motions, reports or inquiries. Unless the Senate otherwise orders, items of Other Business are called in the order in which they are printed, which is determined by the Rules.

Honourable senators, Rule 4-13(1) establishes that Government Business shall have priority over all other business before the Senate. Furthermore, rule 4-13(3) allows the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Government to vary the order of Government Business from that published in the Order Paper and Notice Paper.

Other Business, however, is called in its published order, unless the Senate decides otherwise. There are numerous other references in our Rules to the different provisions that apply to Government Business and Other Business. For example, items of Government Business remain on the Order Paper until they are disposed of, but items of non- Government business are dropped if they are called for fifteen consecutive sitting days without being proceeded with. Should motions 2, 3 and 4 not be addressed for 15 consecutive sittings, they too would drop.

In addition, it is significant to note that under Chapter 7 of our Rules, the Government has, as already mentioned, the option of initiating the time allocation processes in relation to items in the category of Government Business.

Honourable senators, there is a coherence in our Rules. Government Business has priority, and there are mechanisms to facilitate its dispatch. As to Other Business, the Senate follows more traditional practices, so that debate is more difficult to curtail. The disposition motion currently before the Senate appears to cross the boundaries between these two categories.

A proposal of this type could, in the long term, distort the basic structure of Senate business, allowing the Government's time allocation powers to, in effect, be applied to items of Other Business. To avoid the long term risks to the integrity of the basic structure of our business, it would be preferable to find a solution to this particular case that avoids establishing such a far-reaching precedent.

Given the Government's important role, it has specific means, already discussed, to secure the dispatch of its business. But even under Other Business, there are ways to seek to curb or limit debate and to come to a decision. The most obvious is by moving the "previous question,'' which forestalls further amendments, but is only available on the main motion.

Honourable senators, my concern as Speaker in this case goes beyond the specifics of this particular point of order. All senators have an obligation to the long term interests of the Senate, to maintain the integrity of its traditions and practices, especially open debate within a clear structure, that have been hallmarks of the Senate since its very beginning. The changes that have been made over the years to modernize our practices, and to establish mechanisms to facilitate the dispatch of Government Business, were made after consideration and reflection. This approach should not change. At the same time, I am aware that the Speaker's preoccupations cannot trump the judgment of the Senate itself, which always remains the final arbiter of any point of order or question of privilege.

Given my concerns, I would strongly urge the Leaders of the Government and Opposition to work out a timeline that would find a solution to the current challenges facing the Senate, without fundamentally distorting the integrity of the basic structure of our business. As chair, I am more than willing to offer any assistance I can.

Honourable senators, this ruling is based on a thorough examination of the matter, including a full review of the Rules, precedents and procedural literature. I have also considered advice from senior advisors, over several meetings in a short period of time. The issues raised are complex, important and sensitive, and could have profound effects on how the Senate works in the future.

All senators must consider the appropriate way to respond to the challenges posed in this point of order, since the Senate is a largely self-regulating chamber. Thus far we have conducted ourselves in a manner that does credit to the upper house of Canada's bicameral Parliament, applying the basic approach we have at our disposal, namely debate, thoughtfully and carefully.

Honourable senators, through a disposition motion or other means it is possible to propose a way to end debate. The suspension proposals have been moved as non-Government initiatives. To allow a process that could result in the application of the Government's time allocation powers to non-Government business is not in keeping with the current Rules and practices.

Whatever the final outcome on this specific point, the chair remains available to assist the Senate in finding a solution. The ruling is that Senator Martin's motion is out of order and is to be discharged.

(Accordingly, the Order of the Day for resuming debate on motion No. 4 under "Government Business'', was discharged.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Bills — Second Reading

Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Motions

Orders No. 1, 2 and 3 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

OTHER BUSINESS

Senate Public Bills — Second Reading

Orders No. 1 to 5 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Commons Public Bills — Second Reading

Orders No. 1 to 9 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

MOTIONS

The Honourable Senator Brazeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallin:

That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, once the new membership for this session has been appointed pursuant to rule 12-2, be authorized to examine and report on the living allowance of the Honourable Senator Brazeau;

That the committee hear from the senator, who will be entitled to be accompanied by counsel;

That, notwithstanding rule 12-16(1), all proceedings of the committee on this study be held in public; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than December 20, 2013.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator Brazeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallin, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

At 3:17 p.m., pursuant to rule 9-10(7), the sitting was suspended until 5:15 p.m.

The sitting resumed.

DEFERRED VOTES

At 5:30 p.m., pursuant to rule 9-10(2), the Senate proceeded to the taking of the deferred standing vote on the subsidiary motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, to the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis, concerning the suspension of Senator Brazeau.

The question was put on the subsidiary motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser:

That this motion be referred to our Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, when and if the committee is formed, for consideration and report;

That Senator Brazeau be invited to appear; and in light of the public interest in this matter, pursuant to rule 14-7(2), proceedings be televised.

The subsidiary motion was negatived on the following vote:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

Callbeck, Campbell, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, Downe, Dyck, Eggleton, Fraser, Furey, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kenny, Lovelace Nicholas, Massicotte, Mercer, Merchant, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Segal, Smith (Cobourg), Tardif, Wallin, Watt—34

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

Andreychuk, Ataullahjan, Batters, Bellemare, Beyak, Black, Boisvenu, Buth, Carignan, Champagne, Comeau, Dagenais, Demers, Doyle, Eaton, Enverga, Fortin-Duplessis, Frum, Gerstein, Greene, Housakos, Johnson, Lang, LeBreton, MacDonald, Maltais, Manning, Marshall, Martin, McCoy, McInnis, McIntyre, Meredith, Mockler, Neufeld, Ngo, Nolin, Ogilvie, Oh, Patterson, Plett, Poirier, Raine, Rivard, Runciman, Seidman, Seth, Smith (Saurel), Stewart Olsen, Tannas, Tkachuk, Unger, Verner, Wallace ,Wells, White—56

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

Cools—1

° ° °

Pursuant to rule 9-10(6), the Senate proceeded to the taking of the deferred standing vote on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Fraser to the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Poirier concerning the suspension of Senator Wallin:

The question was put on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Fraser, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson, that the motion be amended by replacing the words "Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament'' with the words "Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration''.

The motion in amendment was negatived on the following vote:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

Callbeck, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Downe, Dyck, Eggleton, Fraser, Furey, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Joyal, Kenny, Lovelace Nicholas, Mercer, Merchant, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Rivest, Robichaud, Smith (Cobourg), Tardif, Watt—27

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

Andreychuk, Ataullahjan, Batters, Bellemare, Beyak, Black, Boisvenu, Buth, Campbell, Carignan, Champagne, Comeau, Cools, Dagenais, Day, Demers, Doyle, Eaton, Enverga, Fortin-Duplessis, Frum, Gerstein, Greene, Housakos, Jaffer, Johnson, Lang, LeBreton, MacDonald, Maltais, Manning, Marshall, Martin, Massicotte, McCoy, McInnis, McIntyre, Meredith, Mockler, Neufeld, Ngo, Nolin, Ogilvie, Oh, Patterson, Plett, Poirier, Raine, Ringuette, Rivard, Runciman, Segal, Seidman, Seth, Smith (Saurel), Stewart Olsen, Tannas, Tkachuk, Unger, Verner, Wallace ,Wallin, Wells, White—64

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

Nil

° ° °

The question was put on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Fraser, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif, that the motion be amended by replacing the words "Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament'' with the words "Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration''.

The motion in amendment was negatived on the following vote:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

Callbeck, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Downe, Dyck, Eggleton, Fraser, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Joyal, Kenny, Lovelace Nicholas, Mercer, Merchant, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Rivest, Robichaud, Smith (Cobourg), Tardif, Watt—26

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

Furey—1

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OTHER BUSINESS

Motions

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis:

That, notwithstanding any usual practice or provision of the Rules, in order to protect the dignity and reputation of the Senate and public trust and confidence in Parliament, the Senate order a suspension for the Honourable Senator Brazeau for sufficient cause, considering his gross negligence in the management of his parliamentary resources, until such time as this order is rescinded pursuant to rule 5-5(i), and such suspension shall have the following conditions:

(a) Senator Brazeau, while under suspension, shall not receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses from the Senate, including any sessional allowance or living allowance;

(b) Senator Brazeau's right to the use of Senate resources, including funds, goods, services, premises, moving and transportation, travel and telecommunication expenses, shall be suspended for the duration of the suspension; and

(c) Senator Brazeau shall not receive any other benefit from the Senate during the duration of the suspension;

That, notwithstanding the provisions of this suspension motion, the Senate confirm that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration retains the authority, as it considers appropriate, to take any action pertaining to the management of Senator Brazeau's office and personnel for the duration of the suspension.

After debate,

In amendment, the Honourable Senator McCoy moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cools, that the motion be amended by:

(1) by deleting the first paragraph and replacing it with the following:

That, pursuant to rules 15-2(1) and 15-2(2), and in order to protect the dignity and reputation of the Senate and public trust and confidence in Parliament, that the Senate order a leave of absence for the Honourable Senator Brazeau to last until the RCMP have concluded their investigations into these matters; and

(2) that the second paragraph be deleted and be replaced with the following words:

That concurrent with the RCMP investigation, the Speaker, the Government Leader and the Opposition Leader should engage in regular consultations (with each other), with the goal of identifying an appropriate course of action for the Senate to take with respect to Senator Brazeau, when the outcome of the RCMP investigation is known.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator McCoy, 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 Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Poirier:

That, notwithstanding any usual practice or provision of the Rules, in order to protect the dignity and reputation of the Senate and public trust and confidence in Parliament, the Senate order a suspension for the Honourable Senator Wallin for sufficient cause, considering her gross negligence in the management of her parliamentary resources, until such time as this order is rescinded pursuant to rule 5-5(i), and such suspension shall have the following conditions:

(a) Senator Wallin, while under suspension, shall not receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses from the Senate, including any sessional allowance or living allowance;

(b) Senator Wallin's right to the use of Senate resources, including funds, goods, services, premises, moving and transportation, travel and telecommunication expenses, shall be suspended for the duration of the suspension; and

(c) Senator Wallin shall not receive any other benefit from the Senate during the duration of the suspension;

That, notwithstanding the provisions of this suspension motion, the Senate confirm that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration retains the authority, as it considers appropriate, to take any action pertaining to the management of Senator Wallin's office and personnel for the duration of the suspension;

And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser:

That this motion be referred to our Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament for consideration and report;

That Senator Wallin be invited to appear; and in light of the public interest in this matter, pursuant to rule 14-7(2), proceedings be televised.

The Honourable Senator Martin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, that further debate on the motions 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 Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Poirier:

That, notwithstanding any usual practice or provision of the Rules, in order to protect the dignity and reputation of the Senate and public trust and confidence in Parliament, the Senate order a suspension for the Honourable Senator Duffy for sufficient cause, considering his gross negligence in the management of his parliamentary resources, until such time as this order is rescinded pursuant to rule 5-5(i), and such suspension shall have the following conditions:

(a) Senator Duffy, while under suspension, shall not receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses from the Senate, including any sessional allowance or living allowance;

(b) Senator Duffy's right to the use of Senate resources, including funds, goods, services, premises, moving and transportation, travel and telecommunication expenses, shall be suspended for the duration of the suspension; and

(c) Senator Duffy shall not receive any other benefit from the Senate during the duration of the suspension;

That, notwithstanding the provisions of this suspension motion, the Senate confirm that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration retains the authority, as it considers appropriate, to take any action pertaining to the management of Senator Duffy's office and personnel for the duration of the suspension;

And on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson:

That this motion be referred to our Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament for consideration and report;

That Senator Duffy be invited to appear; and in light of the public interest in this matter, pursuant to rule 14-7(2), proceedings be televised.

The Honourable Senator Martin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marshall, that further debate on the motions be adjourned until the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 14-1(7):

Actuarial Report on the Employment Insurance Premium Rate, together with the Summary, for the year 2014, pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, s. 66.31(1).—Sessional Paper No. 2/41-132.

ADJOURNMENT

The Honourable Senator Martin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

(Accordingly, at 6:12 p.m. the Senate was continued until 2 p.m. tomorrow.)

Journals of the Senate

2nd Session, 41st Parliament

Issue 9

Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:00 p.m.

The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker

PRAYERS

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Tabling of documents

Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Bills — Second Reading

Motions

OTHER BUSINESS

Senate Public Bills — Second Reading

Commons Public Bills — Second Reading

MOTIONS

DEFERRED VOTES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OTHER BUSINESS

Motions

REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 14-1(7):

ADJOURNMENT

Wednesday, October 30, 2013
2:00 p.m.