Skip to content
Previous Sittings
Previous Sittings

Journals of the Senate

3 Charles III , A.D. 2024, Canada

1st Session, 44th Parliament

Issue 228 (Unrevised)

Thursday, October 10, 2024
2 p.m.

The Honourable RAYMONDE GAGNÉ, Speaker


The Members convened were:

The Honourable Senators

AdlerAl ZaibakAndersonArnotAucoinAudetteBattersBellemareBernardBoehmBonifaceBoyerBrazeauBureyCardozoClementCordyCormierCotterCoyleDagenaisDalphondDaskoDeacon (Nova Scotia)Deacon (Ontario)DeanDuncanForestFridhandlerGagnéGalvezGerbaGoldGreenwoodHarderHousakosKingstonKlyneLaBoucane-BensonLankinLoffredaMacAdamMacDonaldMarshallMartinMassicotteMcBeanMcCallumMcNairMcPhedranMégieMiville-DechêneMoodieMoreauMuggliOmidvarOslerOudarPatePattersonPetitclercPettenPlettProsperQuinnRichardsRinguetteRobinsonRossSaint-GermainSeidmanSeniorSimonsSmithVaroneVernerWells (Alberta)Wells (Newfoundland and Labrador)WhiteWooYouanceYussuff

The Members in attendance to business were:

The Honourable Senators

AdlerAl ZaibakAndersonArnot*AtaullahjanAucoinAudetteBattersBellemareBernardBoehmBonifaceBoyerBrazeauBureyCardozoClementCordyCormierCotterCoyleDagenaisDalphondDaskoDeacon (Nova Scotia)Deacon (Ontario)DeanDuncanForestFridhandlerGagnéGalvezGerbaGoldGreenwoodHarderHousakosKingstonKlyneLaBoucane-BensonLankinLoffredaMacAdamMacDonaldMarshallMartinMassicotteMcBeanMcCallumMcNairMcPhedranMégieMiville-DechêneMoodieMoreauMuggliOmidvarOslerOudarPatePattersonPetitclercPettenPlettProsperQuinnRichardsRinguetteRobinsonRossSaint-GermainSeidmanSeniorSimonsSmithVaroneVernerWells (Alberta)Wells (Newfoundland and Labrador)WhiteWooYouanceYussuff

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

Tributes

Tribute was paid to the Honourable Senator Bellemare, who will retire from the Senate on October 13, 2024.

Senators’ Statements

Some Honourable Senators made statements.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Tabling of Documents

The Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson tabled the following:

Government response to the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, entitled The Time is Now: Granting equitable access to psychedelic-assisted therapies, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on November 8, 2023.—Sessional Paper No. 1/44-3660S.

(Pursuant to rule 12-23(4), the report and the response were deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.)

Presenting or Tabling Reports from Committees

The Honourable Senator Omidvar, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, presented the committee’s twenty-sixth report (Bill S-276, An Act respecting Ukrainian Heritage Month, without amendment).

The Honourable Senator Dasko moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Deacon (Ontario), that the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting.

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

o o o

The Honourable Senator Seidman, Chair of the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, tabled the fourth report (interim) of the committee, entitled Interim Report on the Senate’s Order of Reference of December 7, 2023.—Sessional Paper No. 1/44-3661S.

The Honourable Senator Seidman moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marshall, 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 Senate Public Bills

The Honourable Senator Galvez introduced Bill S-289, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park).

The bill was read the first time.

The Honourable Senator Galvez moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pate, 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.

Question Period

The Senate proceeded to Question Period.

Orders of the Day

Government Business

Bills – Third Reading

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moodie, for the third reading of Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare.

After debate,

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

The bill was then read the third time and passed.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House that the Senate has passed this bill, without amendment.

Bills – Second Reading

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Arnot, seconded by the Honourable Senator Clement, for the second reading of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews).

After debate,

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

The bill was then read the second time.

The Honourable Senator Loffreda moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Clement, that the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

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

Bills – Reports of Committees

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cotter, seconded by the Honourable Senator Woo, for the adoption of the twenty-fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, with amendments and observations), presented in the Senate on June 20, 2024.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Honourable senators, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Plett on October 3, 2024, concerning the receivability of certain amendments proposed to Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, in the 25th report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The Leader of the Opposition argued that amendments moved by Senator Klyne, the bill’s sponsor, in the committee, and contained in the report, exceed the scope of the bill as agreed to by the Senate at second reading. If so, they cannot be properly before the Senate. Senator Klyne, on the other hand, felt that the amendments he proposed should continue before the Senate. I thank both senators, as well as Senator Batters who also participated in the consideration of the point of order, for their thoughtful input on an important matter.

As senators know, amendments to a bill must respect the principle of the bill, be within its scope, and be relevant to it. As noted in a ruling of December 9, 2009:

It may generally be helpful to view the principle as the intention underlying a bill. The scope of the bill would then be related to the parameters the bill sets in reaching any goals or objectives that it contains, or the general mechanisms it envisions to fulfil its intentions. Finally, relevancy takes into account how an amendment relates to the scope or principle of the bill under examination.

As indicated at page 141 of Senate Procedure in Practice, this means that:

Amendments must ... be in some way related to the bill before the committee, and cannot introduce elements or factors alien to the proposed legislation or destructive to its original goals. In addition, amendments must respect the objectives of the bill. In dealing with these issues, it may be necessary to perform the delicate task of trying to identify the fundamental policy and goals behind the bill. In so doing, factors such as the long title of the bill, its content and debate at second reading may be taken into account.

Senators’ understanding of the bill, as outlined in debate at second reading can thus be considered in this analysis. As set out in rule 10-4, the principle of the bill is under consideration at this stage. All subsequent proceedings may be restricted by the decision on principle — and flowing from it the matters of scope and relevancy — taken when the Senate agrees to a bill at this stage. No one senator can determine whether amendments can go beyond these parameters.

The fact that a committee adopts an amendment that does not respect the principle and scope of a bill, or is not relevant to it, does not protect the amendment from being challenged in the Senate. While committees are often said to be masters of their own proceedings, they must operate within the rules and practices of the Senate. Although rare, there have been cases where an amendment made in committee has been challenged while the report was under consideration in the Senate. Once the report is adopted, of course, such a challenge would no longer be possible, since it would involve questioning a decision of the Senate itself.

So, while it is possible for a committee to propose quite substantial changes to a bill, the committee must do this within the Senate’s framework of rules and practices, including respect for principle, relevancy and scope.

During consideration of the point of order, concerns were expressed that finding the contested amendments to be out of order might unduly restrict the flexibility needed by the Senate and its committees. On this matter, it must be emphasized that these rules assist in ensuring a structure and orderliness to proceedings, and they are not unduly burdensome. Unless a colleague raises a point of order, debate will almost always go ahead. Even if a point of order is raised, it is quite possible that the amendments would be found to be in order. The Senate has not chosen to impose upon itself a rigid system of pre-verification or validation of amendments and, in practice, this issue only comes up quite rarely, and only if a senator raises it.

In the current case, such a concern has, of course, been raised. The contents of Bill S-15 are clearly structured around issues relating to elephants and great apes. That is what the bill deals with. During debate at second reading, senators focused on these issues. It is also noteworthy that a clear distinction was drawn by some senators between Bill S-15 and Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals). While Bill S-15 was portrayed as generally fitting within Bill S-241, it was recognized to have a much narrower scope, to take into account concerns that had been noted during consideration of the latter bill.

To transform a proposal dealing with two types of exotic animals, developed for specific purposes in light of our constitutional regime, into a measure possibly capturing an open-ended list of species, based on decisions of the Governor in Council and going far beyond just elephants and great apes, would be a surprising development. The goal may or may not be desirable — that is for individual colleagues to decide — but such a transformation cannot be supported by the framework of Bill S-15 as introduced or the understanding of its goals and structure that were evident at second reading debate. The amendments challenged in the point of order are therefore not in order, to the extent they go beyond the bill’s original focus on elephants and great apes.

This analysis does not, however, resolve the issue, since the question of an appropriate remedy must also be considered. In our recent cases involving committee reports containing amendments that were beyond the scope of the bill, all the amendments were involved. The content of the report could thus be evacuated, and the bills proceeded to third reading without amendment. Since some of the amendments contained in the report before us were not challenged, this option does not seem appropriate in this case.

The chair thus sees three possible options available. First, the Senate could continue with debate on the report, with the restriction that the question cannot be put with the report in its current form. A senator would have to move an amendment to remove the proposals that are beyond the scope of the bill. This approach could lead to confusion as to what exactly the Senate is dealing with and whether such changes are sufficient to ensure respect for the scope.

Another approach — which reflects how the House of Commons has dealt with this issue — would be for the Speaker to direct that the relevant elements be struck from the report. This approach would, however, not be in keeping with the culture of our institution, where senators are generally responsible for our work, assisted by the Speaker in the orderly conduct of business. In addition, it should be noted that some elements in the report appear to contain provisions that are out of order and others that are not. As such, the chair is reluctant to arrogate to itself such a role in relation to a lengthy and complex report.

On balance, it would appear that the most appropriate approach, in this particular case, would be for the report and the bill to be returned to the committee. This would allow the committee, which has the expertise, to correct the report by removing the elements that are beyond scope. The committee would be best placed to decide on any complex cases in light of its previous work on the bill. While the committee would be able to decide how it wishes to proceed, this work could be relatively limited, with the committee only having to review the report, remove provisions that were challenged in the point of order, make necessary adjustments and adopt a new report on the bill for presentation to the Senate. It would not be necessary for the committee to redo clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, unless it decides to proceed in that way.

The ruling is therefore, that the amendments challenged in the point of order are not properly before the Senate. To allow the committee to correct this situation, the report is to be struck from the Orders of the Day, and it and the bill be returned to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, so that it can make the requisite corrections and present a new report that respects the scope of the bill. That new report could, of course, be challenged in turn if a colleague were to develop strong arguments that the result is still beyond the bill’s scope.

(Accordingly, the twenty-fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was struck from the Orders of the Day and, together with Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, was returned to the committee.)


Ordered, That the sitting be suspended to reassemble at the call of the chair, with a five-minute bell.

(Accordingly, at 6:36 p.m., the sitting was suspended.)

At 6:53 p.m., the sitting resumed.

WRITTEN DECLARATION OF ROYAL ASSENT

At 6:53 p.m., the Honourable the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

October 10, 2024

Madam Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 10th day of October, 2024, at 6:26 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Schedule

Bills Assented To

Thursday, October 10, 2024

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders) (Bill S-205, Chapter 22, 2024)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material) (Bill C-291, Chapter 23, 2024)

An Act respecting pharmacare (Bill C-64, Chapter 24, 2024)


With leave of the Senate,

The Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Petten:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 22, 2024, at 2 p.m.

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


Ordered, That motion No. 223 standing in the name of the Honourable Senator Wallin on the Notice Paper be brought forward.

The Honourable Senator Loffreda moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Woo:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be authorized to examine and report on Canada’s monetary policy framework, including but not limited to potential updates to the Bank of Canada’s:

(a) legislative and public mandate,

(b) operational inflation target, and

(c) preferred measures of inflation

that may be considered as part of its upcoming monetary policy framework agreement renewal in 2026;

That the Committee report its findings to the Senate from time to time, but no later than June 30, 2025;

That the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit reports on this study with the Clerk of the Senate, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

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

Government Business

Bills – Second Reading

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McNair, seconded by the Honourable Senator Clement, for the second reading of Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.

The Honourable Senator Plett moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

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

ADJOURNMENT

At 6:59 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on October 10, 2024, the Senate adjourned until Tuesday, October 22, 2024, at 2 p.m.

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

Reports of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024, pursuant to the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, sbs. 94(2) and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, sbs. 72(2).—Sessional Paper No. 1/44-3659.

Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 12-5

Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

The Honourable Senator Sorensen replaced the Honourable Senator Pate (October 10, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Pate replaced the Honourable Senator Sorensen (October 10, 2024).

Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

The Honourable Senator Plett replaced the Honourable Senator Manning (October 9, 2024).

Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

The Honourable Senator Busson replaced the Honourable Senator Deacon (Ontario) (October 10, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Ravalia replaced the Honourable Senator Loffreda (October 9, 2024).

Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

The Honourable Senator Ravalia replaced the Honourable Senator Greenwood (October 10, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Al Zaibak replaced the Honourable Senator Ross (October 10, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Greenwood replaced the Honourable Senator Ravalia (October 9, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Ravalia replaced the Honourable Senator McNair (October 9, 2024).

Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples

The Honourable Senator Sorensen replaced the Honourable Senator Pate (October 10, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Tannas replaced the Honourable Senator Ross (October 10, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Ross replaced the Honourable Senator Osler (October 10, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Hartling replaced the Honourable Senator Boniface (October 9, 2024).

Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

The Honourable Senator Tannas replaced the Honourable Senator Ross (October 10, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Ross replaced the Honourable Senator Tannas (October 10, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Wells (Newfoundland and Labrador) replaced the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C. (October 9, 2024).

The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne was removed from the membership of the committee, substitution pending (October 9, 2024).

Standing Senate Committee on National Finance

The Honourable Senator Galvez replaced the Honourable Senator Cormier (October 9, 2024).

Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology

The Honourable Senator Brazeau replaced the Honourable Senator Manning (October 9, 2024).

Back to top