| REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE |
TUESDAY, June 11, 2002 |
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of
Parliament
(formerly entitled the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and
Orders)
has the honour to present its
FOURTEENTH
REPORT
Your Committee, which is authorized by
the Senate, pursuant to Rule 86(1)(f), to propose, from time to time, amendments
to the rules for consideration by the Senate, now
presents its report entitled: Modernizing
the Senate from Within: Updating the Senate Committee Structure – Issues
Raised by Individual Senators.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK
AUSTIN
Chair
MODERNIZING
THE SENATE FROM WITHIN:
UPDATING THE SENATE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
Fourteenth Report: Issues Raised by Individual Senators
Chair: The Honourable Jack Austin, P.C.
Deputy Chair: The Honourable Terry Stratton
JUNE 2002
FOURTEENTH REPORT: ISSUES RAISED BY INDIVIDUAL SENATORS
A.
Ensuring a Visible Response to Committee Reports
B. An Official Languages Committee
C.
A Process for Petitions
D. Considering Provincial Secession Referendum Questions
ISSUES
RAISED BY INDIVIDUAL SENATORS
The Fourteenth Report of
the Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
contains four recommendations that address proposals made by individual Senators
relating to the operational effectiveness of Senate committees and the
effectiveness of the Senate committee system.
The
recommendations set out in this report supplement those provided in the Eleventh
Report of this Committee, in providing for incremental improvements to the
Senate committee system in order to enhance the Senate’s performance of its
fundamental roles. They would
increase the impact of committee reports, strengthen the role of the Senate
concerning official languages, and define new committee roles relating to
petitions and secession referendum questions.
In combination, these recommendations would strengthen the role of the Senate as a chamber of representation, complementary to the House of Commons, and help to ensure that the potential contribution of Senate committee reports to public discussion and policy development by the Government is fully realized.
Several
proposals of individual Senators were referred to your Committee for
consideration while this study was in progress. They comprise:
(a)
the May 17, 2001 motion of Senator Gauthier, as amended by Senator
Lynch-Staunton, that would enable the Senate to request comprehensive Government
responses to committee reports;
(b)
the February 20, 2001 motion of Senator Gauthier that would establish a
Senate committee on official languages; and
(c)
the October 16, 2000 motion of Senator Kinsella that would provide for
the expeditious consideration of secession referendum questions by Committee of
the Whole.
In
addition, two proposals were submitted directly to your Committee by Senators.
A proposal received from Senator Gauthier would create a process for the
review and, where appropriate, study of petitions. It is addressed in this
report.
Preliminary
consideration has also been given to a proposal, received from Senator Carney,
that would remove the distinction currently made in the Minutes of
Proceedings of committees between the physical attendance of Senators and
their participation via video-conferencing (see Annex).
In the view of your Committee, this proposal raises complex issues,
including the need to take full advantage of the access opportunities created by
video-conferencing technologies while minimizing potentially negative impacts on
the way that committees do their work. This
proposal is therefore being reserved for separate treatment in a subsequent
report.
The
proposals addressed in this report have been considered by your
Committee in conjunction with the issues raised in its original Terms of
Reference, enabling a comprehensive approach to issues relating to the committee
structure of the Senate. Reflecting
the existence of common themes, this report is thus presented as a sequel to
your Committee’s Eleventh Report, under the shared general title Modernizing
the Senate From Within: Updating the Senate Committee Structure.
A.
Ensuring a Visible Response to Committee Reports
On May 17, 2001, the Senate referred to your Committee a motion by
Senator Gauthier, as amended by Senator Lynch-Staunton, that would amend the Rules
to enable the Senate, after approving a report submitted by a standing
committee, to refer that report to the Government with a request for a
comprehensive response by the Minister within 90 days.
The purpose of the motion was to equip the Senate with a procedure,
comparable to that employed by the House of Commons, that would enhance its
capacity to obtain a clear and public reaction from Governments to policy
studies and recommendations developed by committees.
In the course of their deliberations, members of your Committee agreed
that the work of the Senate is potentially undermined by the lack of any formal
means of seeking a response from the Government to policy studies, and also
agreed that this problem feeds a widespread perception in the media that such
studies simply gather dust after they are tabled in the Senate Chamber.
Senate studies frequently contribute to the broad processes of
debate and public policy formation by virtue of the strength of their findings
and recommendations. However, the absence of tangible evidence of Government
attention implies an indifference to Parliament, and to the citizens it
represents, that is unacceptable in a democratic system of government. As well, it impedes the capacity of committees to follow up
on their work by assessing its impacts; threatens to undermine committee
effectiveness by discouraging expert witnesses and Senators from making the
necessary investments of time and effort; and fosters the impression that the
public funds required for committee studies are not producing results.
Your Committee has considered practices established in the House of
Commons and other jurisdictions, involving a procedural entitlement of
committees to a formal Government response to their reports within a specified
period of time. Although the
quality of the responses provided by Governments varies considerably (and also
varies among ministers within governments), a formal response at least provides
committees and the witnesses that have appeared before them with a tangible
indication that reports have been given serious attention.
Responses can also provide an initial focus for follow-up study.
The Senate has no easy means to compel a minister of the Crown to respond
to its reports. However, your
Committee believes that the political pressures that would be associated with a
public request for a response would normally be sufficient to ensure action from
ministers, especially if the request is made on a committee’s behalf by the
Senate as a whole, and the time period is consistent with that employed by the
House of Commons – 150 calendar days. Your
Committee therefore recommends:
1.
That the Senate adopt a procedure that would
(a)
enable the Senate, following its approval of a report submitted by a
select committee, to refer that report to the Government with a request for a
comprehensive response within 150 calendar days; and
(b)
require the Leader of the Government in the Senate to either table the
Government’s response within the 150 day period or provide the Senate with an
explanation; and
(c)
deem the report and the comprehensive response to be referred upon
tabling to the select committee for review, and provide that the select
committee be deemed to have been referred the matter for consideration should
the 150 day period lapse without a comprehensive response being received.
(For
original motion and proposed rule, see Annex, “List of Original
Motions/Proposals, Recommendations and Proposed Rules.”)
B. An Official Languages Committee
In response to the motion of Senator Gauthier, adopted on February 20,
2001, your Committee has examined a proposal to create a Senate Committee on
Official Languages, to allow the Senate membership on the Standing Joint
Committee on Official Languages to lapse, and to so advise the House of Commons.
In the course of its deliberations, your Committee was advised by current
and past participants in the Joint Committee that its level of activity in
recent years has been modest, although an extensive list of official languages
issues continues to need attention and action.
Furthermore, several Senators expressed frustration over the fact that
priority issues for the French-language community have not been consistently
reflected in the focus of the Joint Committee, and that English-language issues
in Quebec have received minimal attention.
These frustrations were supplemented by concerns that the mandate of the
Joint Committee is deficient in failing to provide for the consideration of
legislation, and that the contribution of Senators to the Joint Committee is
routinely ignored in the media, which fosters negative public impressions of the
Senate in general.
Your Committee’s deliberations reflected the recognition that the
existence of official language is a fundamental characteristic of Canada,
enshrined in the Constitution. Official
languages issues are thus priority issues for the Senate, as they ought to be
for all Canadians. In view of the
problems that have arisen with the Joint Committee, there was general agreement
on the need for a better mechanism within the Senate for addressing official
language issues, and discussion focused largely on what that mechanism might be.
Consideration
was given to the respective advantages of a new committee in comparison with
those of a subcommittee or informal working group. The creation of a new committee would be potentially the most
effective response to the problems posed by existing arrangements, partly
because it could be given a formal mandate to examine legislation. It would also
provide a strong symbolic affirmation of the priority attached by the Senate to
official languages issues.
However,
members expressed concerns that a new committee might exacerbate structural
pressures discussed in your Committee’s Eleventh Report, and could involve new
resource requirements. Since a
subcommittee or working group performing the work of a committee could give rise
to similar objections without offering the compensating advantages of a full
committee, your Committee concluded that a Senate committee equipped with a
comprehensive official languages mandate is the preferred mechanism for
addressing the concerns that have emerged from existing arrangements.
A
second issue considered by your Committee was whether the creation of a Senate
official languages committee should affect Senate participation on the existing
Joint Committee. The two
immediately apparent options each have advantages, and significant offsetting
disadvantages. One option is a new
committee operating in addition to the existing Joint Committee, and potentially
involving Senators additional to those continuing to serve on the Joint
Committee. This option would avoid
any potential repercussions of a unilateral withdrawal by one parliamentary
chamber from a joint committee of Parliament, and also allow Senators to
continue to work within the Joint Committee on the critically important issues
included in its mandate. On the
other hand, a parallel committee would exacerbate the workload and scheduling
problems that your Committee has elsewhere argued are the central problem
affecting the existing committee system, directly conflict with attempts to
restrain the number of committees and subcommittees, and impose excessive
demands on Senators desiring to participate in both official languages
committees.
The
contrasting option – ceasing to participate on the Joint Committee once a
Senate official languages committee is established – reverses the advantages
and disadvantages just outlined. It
would minimize resource pressures. Indeed,
a small committee of, for example, six members, would at least in theory involve
less pressure on the time of Senators than the Joint Committee, for which the Rules
specify nine Senate members. Perhaps
more significantly, it would enable Senate resources to be focussed more
effectively. Operating within a
Senate committee, Senators could actively pursue the critical issues free of the
counterproductive absorption of time and energy that, its members advise us, has
become endemic to the Joint Committee.
This option may, however, create tensions between the Senate and the
House of Commons, and also preclude potentially beneficial Senate involvement in
the work of the Joint Committee, although it would not preclude work with the
House of Commons on an ad hoc basis.
Having
weighed these considerations, your Committee has concluded that the Senate needs
a committee dedicated exclusively to official language issues, in order to
maximize the effectiveness of the work of Senators in this area.
Concerns about resourcing implications and relations between the Senate
and the House of Commons are secondary to the need for maximum effectiveness,
and can be addressed, consistent with the general approach taken in other
recommendations by your Committee, by (1) making specific arrangements to ensure
efficiency and (2) maximizing flexibility at the level of implementation.
In particular, the size of the committee should be limited to six
members, and the Chair of your Committee should be authorized to meet with his
House of Commons counterpart to explain and discuss the reasons behind the
decision to establish a separate official languages committee. Your Committee
therefore recommends:
2.
That Senators support a motion to:
(a)
establish a Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages, consisting
of six members and mandated to consider legislation along with other duties;
(b)
terminate the participation of Senators on the existing Joint Committee
on Official Languages, commencing upon the adoption of this report;
(c)
authorize the Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and
the Rights of Parliament to meet with his House of Commons counterpart to
discuss the reasons for the decision outlined in this motion; and
(d)
send a Message to the House of Commons to acquaint that House
accordingly.
(For
original motion and proposed Rule, see Annex, “List of
Original Motions/Proposals, Recommendations and Proposed Rules”)
Your Committee has considered a proposal developed by Senator Gauthier,
relating to the possibility that Senate committees could enhance the
effectiveness of petitions, where they represent the authentic views of
citizens. Currently, petitions are
presented in the Senate Chamber, and thus drawn to the attention of all
Senators, but the Senate Rules do not provide for a more specific
response. The Senate thus does not
have a mechanism for giving recognition to the representations of citizens made
in petitions, or to the Senators who convey these representations to the
Chamber.
The central role of Senate committees in examining issues and policy
options makes them the appropriate mechanism for receiving the representative
inputs contained in petitions, and for determining whether they require a formal
response such as detailed study or a policy recommendation.
Where a committee determines that substantive attention is required, it
could proceed with it and report findings and recommendations to the Senate.
As with other studies, the resulting committee report would be
considered, and debated, in the Senate Chamber.
Your Committee therefore recommends:
3.
That the Senate adopt a rule based on Senator Gauthier’s proposal
relating to petitions, setting out the requirements as to their form and
content, providing for a presentation procedure and providing that the subject
matter of each public petition shall be referred to the appropriate standing
committee, which shall consider it and, where it believes such action to be
desirable, report back to the Senate with findings and recommendations.
(For
original proposal and proposed Rule, see Annex, “List of Original
Motions/Proposals, Recommendations and Proposed Rules.”)
D. Considering
Provincial Secession Referendum Questions
On
October 16, 2000, Senator Kinsella, seconded by Senator Forrestall, moved that
the Senate amend rule 26 to provide for the expeditious consideration of
secession referendum questions by Committee of the Whole, upon their being
tabled in a provincial legislature. The
purpose of this amendment was to create a procedure that would ensure the
Senate’s appropriate participation in parliamentary review of the clarity of
secession referendum questions and results, as provided for in the Clarity
Act.([1])
The Act requires that the House of Commons reach a determination as to
the clarity of a secession referendum question within 30 days of its being
tabled by a provincial government, and (subsequent to the holding of the
referendum) determine whether or not there has been a clear expression of the
will of a clear majority in favour of secession.
Although the Senate is not given a determinative role in either of these
decisions, the legislation includes the Senate among the parties whose views the
House of Commons is required to take into account.
The Senate thus needs a procedure that would be appropriate to the
character of the issues raised by a secession referendum, and would also enable
the Senate to make its views known to the House of Commons in a timely manner.
Your Committee believes that the procedure proposed in Senator
Kinsella’s motion would provide the basis for an effective means of meeting
these needs, with the deletion of provisions requiring representations from
provinces and designated groups that would normally be sought as a matter of
course, but could affect the Senate’s capacity to hold hearings within desired
timeframes in some circumstances. Your
Committee therefore recommends:
4.
That, with the exception of clauses 26.1(8) to (11), the Senate adopt the
substance of the October 16, 2000 motion of Senator Kinsella, seconded by
Senator Forrestall, that would add a rule 26.1 to provide for the expeditious
consideration of secession referendum questions or referendum results by
Committee of the Whole, upon their being tabled in a provincial legislature or
otherwise officially released.
(For
Senator Kinsella’s original motion and your Committee’s proposed rule, see
Annex, “List of Original Motions/Proposals, Recommendations and Proposed
Rules.”)
Your Committee wishes to express its thanks to the Senators involved in
the development, presentation, and discussion in the Senate of the proposals
considered in this report. While
the proposals are substantively diverse, they are consistent in their reflection
of broad objectives that have guided this Committee in its deliberations on the
Senate committee structure and, in conjunction with recommendations made
elsewhere, will contribute to the realization of a more effective Senate.
In particular, the recommendations set out above can increase the public visibility and impact on the Government of committee reports; strengthen the role of the Senate in representing official languages communities and responding to their concerns; enhance the capacity of the Senate to respond to public representations in the form of petitions; and ensure that the Senate can make a meaningful contribution to the consideration of secession referendum questions. Your Committee believes that, in combination, they can contribute to the creation of a Senate that works more effectively for Canadians, and is seen by Canadians to be more effective.
LIST
OF ORIGINAL MOTIONS/PROPOSALS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED RULES
1.
Ensuring a Visible Response to Committee Reports
Motion
Referred:
That the Rules of the Senate
be amended, by adding after Rule 90 the following new Rule:
90.1
Ninety days following the passage by the Senate of a select committee's
report, the government shall table, at the Senate's request, a comprehensive
response.
Recommendation:
That
the Senate adopt a procedure that would
(a)
enable the Senate, following its approval of a report submitted by a
select committee, to refer that report to the Government with a request for a
comprehensive response within 150 calendar days;
(b)
require the Leader of the Government in the Senate to either table the
Government’s response within the 150 day period or provide the Senate with an
explanation; and
(c)
deem the report and the comprehensive response to be referred upon
tabling to the select committee for review, and provide that the select
committee be deemed to have been referred the matter for consideration should
the 150 day period lapse without a comprehensive response being received.
Proposed
Rule:
THAT the Rules of the Senate be amended in rule 131,
(a) by renumbering rule 131 as 131(1); and
(b) by adding after subsection 131(1) the following:
“Request for Government response
(2) Where the Senate adopts either a resolution or a report from a select committee, other than the report on a bill, requesting the Government to provide a full and comprehensive response to the report, the Clerk of the Senate shall communicate the request to the Government Leader in the Senate who shall, within one hundred and fifty calendar days after the adoption of the report, either table the Government’s response or give an explanation for not doing so in the Senate.
(3) Where the Senate adopts a resolution or a report under subsection (2), the report of the select committee and the response of the Government or the explanation of the Government Leader for the absence of a response are deemed to be referred to the select committee one hundred and fifty calendar days after the adoption of the report.”
2. An
Official Languages Committee
Motion:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders examine the following proposal: That
Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Senate be amended:
1. by deleting paragraph (e);
2. by adding immediately after paragraph (q) the following new paragraph:
"The Senate Committee on Official Languages, composed of seven members, four of whom shall constitute a quorum, to which may be referred, as the Senate may decide, bills, messages, petitions, inquiries, papers and other matters relating to official languages"; and
3. by relettering the paragraphs accordingly.
That, notwithstanding Rule 85(3), the Senate membership on the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages lapse; and
That a Message be sent to the House of Commons acquainting that House thereof.
Recommendation:
That
Senators support a motion to:
(a)
establish a Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages, consisting
of six members and mandated to consider legislation along with other duties;
(b)
terminate the participation of Senators on the existing Joint Committee
on Official Languages, commencing upon the adoption of this report;
(c)
authorize the Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and
the Rights of Parliament to meet with his House of Commons counterpart to
discuss the reasons for the decision outlined in this motion; and
(d)
send a Message to the House of Commons to acquaint that House
accordingly.
Proposed Rule:
THAT
the Rules of the Senate be amended in rule 86:
(a)
by deleting paragraph (1)(e);
(b)
by re-lettering paragraphs (1)(f) to (1)(s) as (1)(e) to (1)(r) and all
cross-references thereto accordingly; and
(c)
by adding after paragraph (1)(s) the following:
“Official
Languages
(s) The Senate Committee on Official Languages, composed of six members, four of whom shall constitute a quorum, to which may be referred, as the Senate may decide, bills, messages, petitions, inquiries, papers and other matters relating to official languages generally.”.
3.
A Process for Petitions
Draft Rule Proposed to your Committee:
1.
By right, everyone living in Canada can petition the Senate seeking the
redress of any grievance that falls within the authority of Parliament.
2. (1)
To be presented to the Senate, a public petition must first be certified
correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions
(2)
To be certified, a public
petition must:
(a)
be addressed to the Senate or
to the Senate in Parliament assembled;
(b)
contain a clear, proper and
respectful request that the Senate take some action within its authority;
(c)
be written, typewritten or
printed on paper of usual size;
(d)
be free of alterations and
extraneous matter in its text;
(e)
have its subject matter
indicated on every sheet if it consists of more than one sheet of signatures and
addresses;
(f)
contain only original
signatures and addresses written directly onto the public petition; and
(g)
contain at least twenty-five
signatures together with addresses from persons other than Senators.
3.
A public petition may be presented to the Senate,
(a)
at any time during the
sitting of the Senate by filing it with the Clerk;
(b)
during the daily Routine of
Business under Petitions.
4.
Every Senator who presents a public petition shall endorse it.
5.
Every public petition shall be transmitted by the Clerk to the
Government, which shall, within 45 days, table a response in the Senate.
Recommendation:
That
the Senate adopt a rule based on Senator Gauthier’s proposal relating to
petitions, setting out the requirements as to their form and content, providing
for a presentation procedure and providing that the subject matter of each
public petition shall be referred to the appropriate standing committee, which
shall consider it and, where it believes such action to be desirable, report
back to the Senate with findings and recommendations.
Proposed
Rule:
THAT the Rules of the Senate be amended by replacing rules 69 to 71 with the following:
“Presentation of petitions
69. (1) A Senator may present a petition to the Senate, including a
petition for the passage of a private bill or for the redress of a grievance.
Senator’s signature
(2) A Senator who presents a petition to the Senate must sign
it as the sponsor, but the signature of the Senator is not an indication that
the Senator agrees with the content of the petition.
Multiple sponsors
(3) More than one Senator may sponsor a petition.
Report
attached
(4) A Senator who presents a petition for the purposes of rule 71 shall
present it with the report of the Examiner of Petitions attached.
Content
of petition
(5) A petition to the Senate must:
(a)
be identified as a
petition;
(b)
be addressed to the Senate or to the Senate in Parliament assembled;
(c) respectfully request the Senate to do something that it is able to do;
(d)
if it is the petition of one or more individuals, contain the original
signatures of the petitioners, their names and correct addresses and the dates
of their respective signatures; and
(e)
if it is the petition of a corporation, be dated and duly authenticated and
under the seal of the corporation.
Form
of petition
(6) A petition to the Senate must:
(a)
be in a form prescribed by
the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, on sheets of
paper of standard or legal size;
(b)
be an original, not a photocopy or facsimile;
(c) be legible, whether it is written, typewritten, printed or some combination of these;
(d) be free of extraneous matter in its text and of alterations; and
(e)
reproduce on every sheet its identification as a petition to the Senate or to
the Senate in Parliament assembled and the text of the request, if it consists
of more than one sheet of signatures and addresses.
Examiner
of Petitions
(7) The Director of Committees shall be the Examiner of Petitions.
Petition on behalf of public meeting
70. Petitions signed by persons purporting to represent
public meetings shall be received only as the petitions of the persons who sign.
Public petitions
71. (1) In this rule, “public
petition” means a petition to the Senate or the Senate in Parliament assembled
by at least 25 persons, other than Senators and members of the House of Commons,
that is filed for examination, presentation, referral and report under this
rule.
Filing for examination
(2) A person may file a public petition with the Clerk of the
Senate who shall, at the request of a Senator who proposes to sponsor it, refer
it to the Examiner of Petitions for examination for compliance with rule 69.
Referral
(3) Where a Senator presents a public petition in the Senate
with a report by the Examiner of Petitions attached advising that the petition
is in compliance with rule 69, the petition, its subject-matter and the report
shall be referred, without notice and without debate, to the appropriate
standing committee.
Report
(4) The committee to which a public petition is referred
under subsection (3) may report on its findings and recommendations, if any, to
the Senate.”.
4. Considering
Provincial Secession Referendum Questions
Original
Motion:
THAT the Rules of the Senate be amended, in rule 26,
(a) by adding the following before subsection (1):
“Constitutional
business
(1) Constitutional Business: Orders of the Day for motions under rule 26.1(3);”
(b) by renumbering subsections (1) and (2) and all cross-references
thereto accordingly; and
(c) by adding the following after rule 26:
“Question
considered
26.1 (1) Immediately after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, motions to refer that question to Committee of the Whole for consideration and report may be moved without leave at the next sitting of the Senate, and, if moved, must be considered and disposed of in priority to all other orders of the day.
Clear majority considered
(2) Immediately after the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of that province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms of which that province might cease to be a part of Canada, motions to refer the subject of the clarity of the majority achieved in the referendum to Committee of the Whole for consideration and report may be moved without leave at the next sitting of the Senate, and, if moved, must be considered and disposed of in priority to all other Orders of the Day.
Order of business
(3) Notwithstanding rule 23(8), the Speaker shall call for motions under this rule as the first item of business after Question Period.
Priority
(4) Motions under this rule shall be considered and disposed of in the following order: a motion, if any, by the Government Leader; a motion, if any, by the Leader of the Opposition; a motion, if any, by the leader of a recognized third party in the Senate; motions, if any, by other Senators.
Deemed disposition
(5) Only one order of reference at a time may be made under subsections (1) and (2), and as soon as an order of reference is adopted, with or without amendment, the remaining motions fall from the order paper.
Time
(6) Where the Senate adopts an order of reference under subsection (1), the Committee of the Whole shall report within fifteen days of the commencement of proceedings in the Senate under subsection (1).
Transmission of findings
(7) When the Senate adopts a resolution in respect of a report presented pursuant to subsections (1) and (6), the Speaker of the Senate shall transmit copies of the resolution and of all proceedings held under this rule in the Senate and in the Committee of the Whole, including a complete copy of every representation made under this rule, to the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Speakers of each provincial and territorial legislative assembly in Canada.
Provincial representation
(8) Where an order is made under subsection (2), the Clerk of the Senate, immediately following the adoption of the report, shall invite the government of every province and territory to make verbal or written representations to the Committee of the Whole, and every province and territory that replies in the affirmative shall be given reasonable opportunity to do so.
Minority representation
(9) Where an order is made under subsection (2), the Committee of the Whole shall decide which representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada and of the English and French linguistic minority population of each province and territory should be invited to make verbal or written representations to the Committee, and every representative who replies in the affirmative shall be given reasonable opportunity to do so.
Time
(10) Where the Senate adopts an order of reference under subsection (2), the Committee of the Whole shall report within fifteen days of the commencement of proceedings in the Senate under subsection (2).
Transmission of findings
(11) When the Senate adopts a resolution in respect of a report presented pursuant to subsections (2) and (10), the Speaker of the Senate shall transmit copies of the resolution and of all proceedings held under this rule in the Senate and in Committee of the Whole, including a complete copy of every representation made under this rule, to the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Speakers of each provincial and territorial legislative assembly in Canada.”
Recommendation:
That,
with the exception of clauses 26.1(8) to (11), the Senate adopt the substance of
the October 16, 2000 motion of Senator Kinsella, seconded by Senator Forrestall,
that would add a rule 26.1 to provide for the expeditious consideration of
secession referendum questions or referendum results by Committee of the Whole,
upon their being tabled in a provincial legislature or otherwise officially
released.
Proposed
Rule:
THAT the Rules of the Senate be amended, in rule 26,
(a) by adding the following before subsection (1):
“Constitutional
business
(1) Constitutional Business: Orders of the Day for motions under rule 26.1(3).”
(b) by renumbering subsections (1) and (2) as (2) and (3) and all
cross-references thereto accordingly; and
(c) by adding the following after rule 26:
“Question
considered
26.1 (1) Immediately after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, motions to refer that question to Committee of the Whole for consideration and report may be moved without leave at the next sitting of the Senate, and, if moved, must be considered and disposed of in priority to all other orders of the day.
Clear majority considered
(2) Immediately after the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of that province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms of which that province might cease to be a part of Canada, motions to refer the subject of the clarity of the majority achieved in the referendum to Committee of the Whole for consideration and report may be moved without leave at the next sitting of the Senate, and, if moved, must be considered and disposed of in priority to all other Orders of the Day.
Order of business
(3) Notwithstanding rule 23(8), the Speaker shall call for motions under this rule as the first item of business after Question Period.
Priority
(4) Motions under this rule shall be considered and disposed of in the following order: a motion, if any, by the Government Leader; a motion, if any, by the Leader of the Opposition; a motion, if any, by the leader of a recognized third party in the Senate; motions, if any, by other Senators.
Deemed disposition
(5) Only one order of reference at a time may be made under subsection (1) or (2) and, as soon as an order of reference is adopted, with or without amendment, the remaining motions shall be dropped from the Order Paper.
Time
(6) Where the Senate adopts an order of reference under this rule, the Committee of the Whole shall report within fifteen calendar days after proceedings commenced in the Senate under subsection (1) or (2).
Transmission of findings
(7) When the Senate adopts a resolution in respect of a report presented
pursuant to this rule, the Speaker of the Senate shall transmit copies of the
resolution and of all proceedings held under this rule in the Senate and in the
Committee of the Whole, including a complete copy of every representation made
under this rule, to the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Speakers of
each provincial and territorial legislative assembly in Canada.”.
5. Recognition
of Attendance Via Video-Conferencing
Text
of a letter received:
June
15, 2001
Dear
Chair:
Re: Meeting of Rules
Committee, June 19-20, 2001
I would like to raise an issue of committee attendance for consideration
at next week’s meeting.
On May 9th, along with witnesses from British Columbia, I
participated in a Fisheries Committee meeting via video-conference from
Vancouver. It is recorded in the
official Committee Hansard that I am “Attending by Video Conference”, not as
one of the “Members of the Committee present”.
It is ludicrous to suggest that committee members who participate via
video or tele-conferencing not be considered as “Members of the Committee
present”.
Also, under the current Rules of the Senate, for recording in the
official Senator attendance Register I cannot be marked under the section of
“Committee Meetings Attended”, but marked only as being on “Public
Business”, even though my participation, like that of the other committee
members and the B.C. witnesses, was recorded in the official committee Hansard.
I am therefore suggesting that the Rules be changed so that Committee
Senators, who for good reason have to participate either by video or
tele-conferencing, be considered present – whether the Committee meeting is
“on the record” or “in camera” – since our participation is a matter
of record.
I thank you and your Committee for considering this process of unfair
“attendance recording” and I look forward to any amendments you may make to
set the record straight.
Yours sincerely,
[original signed by:]
Hon. Pat Carney, P.C.
Senator for British Columbia