Journals of the Senate
48 Elizabeth II, A.D. 1999, Canada
Journals of the Senate
Issue 144
Thursday, June 3, 1999
2:00 p.m.
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, Austin, Balfour, Beaudoin, Berntson, Bryden, Buchanan, Butts, Callbeck, Carstairs, Cochrane, Cohen, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, De Bané, DeWare, Doody, Eyton, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Gauthier, Ghitter, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Hervieux-Payette, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Kinsella, Kolber, Kroft, Lavoie-Roux, LeBreton, Lewis, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Maloney, Meighen, Mercier, Milne, Molgat, Moore, Nolin, Oliver, Pépin, Pitfield, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Rivest, Roberge, Robichaud , (L'Acadie-Acadia), Robichaud , (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Roche, Rompkey, Rossiter, Ruck, Simard, Spivak, Stewart, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Watt, Wilson
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, *Atkins, Austin, Balfour, Beaudoin, Berntson, Bryden, Buchanan, Butts, Callbeck, Carstairs, Cochrane, Cohen, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, De Bané, DeWare, Doody, Eyton, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Gauthier, Ghitter, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, *Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Kinsella, *Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lavoie-Roux, LeBreton, Lewis, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Maloney, Meighen, Mercier, Milne, Molgat, Moore, Nolin, Oliver, Pépin, Pitfield, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Rivest, Roberge, Robichaud , (L'Acadie-Acadia), Robichaud , (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Roche, Rompkey, Rossiter, Ruck, Simard, Spivak, Stewart, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Watt, Wilson,
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., Joint Chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, tabled its Sixth Report (regulations administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development). -Sessional Paper No. 1/36-1180. The Honourable Senator Stratton, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, presented its Fifteenth Report (Bill C-71, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 16, 1999) without amendment.The Honourable Senator Carstairs moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., that the Bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a third reading at the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Presentation of Petitions
The Honourable Senator Cochrane presented a petition:Of Residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador concerning public pension funds.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, for the third reading of Bill C-72, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980) and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain Acts related to the Income Tax Act.After debate, The Honourable Senator Kinsella for the Honourable Senator Meighen moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. Order No. 2 was called and postponed until the next sitting. Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kirby, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, for the second reading of Bill C-78, An Act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.
After debate, The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Carstairs moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bryden, that the Bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Poy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich, for the second reading of Bill C-64, An Act to establish an indemnification program for travelling exhibitions.
After debate, The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Poy moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cools, 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. Order No. 5 was called and postponed until the next sitting. Second reading of Bill C-67, An Act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and other Acts relating to financial institutions and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Maloney, that the Bill be read the second time.
After debate, The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Carstairs moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., that the Bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Reports of Committees
The Order was called concerning the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, seconded by the Honourable Senator Callbeck, for the adoption of the Twelfth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications (Bill C-55, An Act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, with amendments) presented in the Senate on May 31, 1999.SPEAKER'S RULING
On Tuesday, June 1, when Senator Poulin, the Chair of the Committee on Transport and Communications, was about to move the adoption of the Twelfth Report recommending certain amendments to Bill C-55, An Act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, Senator Lynch-Staunton raised a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that several of these amendments would have the effect of reversing the principle of the bill which is contrary to established parliamentary practice.In making his case, Senator Lynch-Staunton explained what he understood to be the principle of the bill. In his words, "the intent of Bill C-55 was to prohibit absolutely the possibility of Canadian advertising being placed in American periodicals known as split runs." Citing Canadian and British parliamentary authorities, he noted that amendments that effectively reverse the principle of the bill are out of order.
Senator Lynch-Staunton also suggested that the amendments involve a possible tax expenditure rendering the bill, as he assessed it, into a money bill.
Senator Poulin then explained how the amendments recommended in the Committee report were in order procedurally. Based on her analysis of the title of the bill and the legitimate scope of committee review of a bill as characterized in the 6th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, citations 688 and 689 at page 205, she maintained that the recommended amendments were in order. In the Senator's view, Bill C-55, as amended by the committee, "remains unequivocally a bill respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers." The fundamental policy behind the bill continues to be, as she put it, "the preservation and defence of our culture by enhancing the ability of Canadian magazines to succeed in the marketplace."
For his part, Senator Murray was not persuaded. In his brief intervention, the Senator stated that the committee amendments had the effect of reversing a long-standing policy to exclude foreign split-run publications from the Canadian market.
Speaking against the amendments, Senator Kinsella cited another Canadian parliamentary text, the 4th edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, and invoked the standards of Aristotelian logic. Though admitting that the amendments recommended by the Committee to Bill C-55 were not the absolute negative of the bill's original proposition, he was in no doubt that they constituted a "contrary opposition by any standard of logic." Accordingly, the Senator contended that the amendments denied the principle of the bill and were unacceptable.
The discussion on the point of order continued with interventions by Senator Carstairs and Senator Graham as well as further statements by Senator Poulin, Senator Lynch-Staunton, Senator Murray, and Senator Kinsella.
It was at this stage that a second element of the point of order became the focus of some comment. Senator Lynch-Staunton, in his first intervention, had suggested that Bill C-55 might be a money bill. Senator Kinsella noted certain statements of the Minister during her appearance before the committee referring to a publishers' fund to be created to compensate those who will suffer financially as a result of the amendments now being proposed to this bill. By way of response, Senator Graham challenged the opposition to point to any section of the bill that provides for the expenditure of any money. He asserted flatly that "this bill does not create such a fund, nor does it authorize any money whatsoever for any such fund."
I want to thank those Honourable Senators who participated in the discussion on the point of order. I have since had an opportunity to review the arguments that were presented and to assess the parliamentary authorities that were mentioned with respect to the scope of committee amendments to bills and the underlying importance of the principle of a bill as adopted at second reading. I have also read the Clerk's copy of the bill that shows the amendments incorporated into it to have a better understanding of their significance.
Let me deal with the second aspect of the point of order first. A connection has been made with the amendments to the bill and the Minister's remarks about a related program that the Government might put in place to aid publishers adversely affected by the consequences of Bill C-55 as amended by the committee's report. Senator Kinsella indicated that he regarded these two elements as interlocking, as a package. At the very least, he suggested that I consider the matter as problematic. Senator Graham, on the other hand, challenged anyone to show any text in the bill that provides an expenditure of any government money. In his judgment, there is none to be found. This is certainly a critical point.
Any amendment that authorizes an expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (the CRF) would be out of order. As the chamber of sober second thought, it is not within the power of the Senate to introduce such an amendment. That is the responsibility of the other place.
It is not enough to suggest that there are consequences that might flow from the amendments, that there might be expenditures as a result of programs the Government might establish following the implementation of Bill C-55. While such a program might be part of a package, they are not directly part of the bill itself or the amendments now before the Senate. As Speaker, I can only look at the bill and the amendments. What I see does not explicitly provide for the appropriation of any funds from the CRF. Accordingly, the incorporation of these amendments would not convert Bill C-55 into a money bill. The amendments are not out of order based on this second objection.
The original argument first raised by Senator Lynch-Staunton is more problematic, but equally fundamental. It is his position that the amendments go against the principle of the bill. Citing the summary of the bill and clause 3, he maintains that the bill is seeking to prohibit absolutely the placement of Canadian advertisements in American split-run magazines. Any variation of this policy, whether 1% or 99%, according to the Senator, would violate this principle.
Holding a contrary position, Senator Poulin argues that the amendments are not contrary to the bill as understood by its long title which states that Bill C-55 is an Act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers. Furthermore, the Senator explained that the amendments fall clearly within the scope of the bill and are relevant to it. The committee, in making its recommendations to amend the bill, was operating properly.
Reliance on the terms of the long title of the bill as a guide to assess the procedural acceptability of amendments to a bill is derived from British practice. In the United Kingdom, the legislative drafting conventions, as I have been advised, provide for titles that are more fully descriptive of the bill's contents. In Canada, however, the long title of bills is rarely as descriptive. More often, the title simply suggests its subject matter. Indeed, with respect to amending bills, the title usually indicates only what Acts are being amended. Frequently, there is little substantive difference between the long and the short titles of the bill whether they are creating original Acts or amending parent Acts. That appears to be the case with Bill C-55. Consequently, the long title can not always be used as a reliable guide in assessing the procedural merits of any amendment.
A more useful approach, one that always needs to be considered in examining the procedural acceptability of amendments, is to determine if they are within the scope of the bill and relevant to it. In the case now before us, the only amendments that seem to be in dispute are the ones that add new clauses 20.1, 21.1 and 21.2.
I do not think that there is any doubt that the amendments are relevant to the bill. There is nothing in their content that suggests that they are bringing into the bill anything that is extraneous or foreign to it. The real question is whether they are destructive of its principle. Do they have the effect of reversing this principle? Unless they do this unmistakably, I would feel obliged as Speaker to allow them and so let the Senate itself come to a determination on their merits.
It has been argued that the principle of the bill is enunciated in clause 3 which states that the provision of advertising services by foreign publishers should be restricted. With respect, I do not think that just one clause can capture the entire principle or scope of a bill unless, of course, it is a very simple bill. Indeed, the principle of the bill can be difficult to identify precisely. As Speaker Jerome from the other place once pointed out in a ruling he made in 1976, past precedents give "absolutely no assistance in attempting to define what is the principle of the bill." Certainly I had the same challenge when I was asked to rule on the acceptability of amendments proposed to Bill C-28, dealing with the agreements for the redevelopment of Pearson International Airport, considered during the second session of the last Parliament.
In summary, therefore, I would suggest that the identification of the principle of a bill can encompass the understanding reflected by Senators during debate at second reading as well as its title and content.
With respect to the principle of Bill C-55, the debate at second reading by several Senators on both sides seemed to include a somewhat broader meaning than just clause 3. As was explained then, the principle or objective of Bill C-55 is to provide some means to ensure the continued viability of the Canadian magazine industry. Moreover, the text of the bill suggests that clause 3 can be subject to some qualification. For example, clause 20(c) states that the Governor in Council has the authority to make regulations respecting "criteria to determine whether advertising services are directed at the Canadian market."
Even more importantly, clause 21 provides for what is described as the non-application of the Act. This clause spells out an exemption that is aimed to protect some foreign publishers from the punitive operations of Bill C-55. The proposed amendments, new clauses 21.1 and 21.2, expand upon the scope of that non-application within certain other parameters. Whether these are desirable objectives is not for me to decide. My responsibility is to assess whether these proposed amendments are beyond the scope of the bill, whether they are clearly destructive of the bill's principle or whether they unmistakably reverse that principle. It does not appear to me that they do this.
It is my ruling that the amendments are in order. Debate on the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications recommending several amendments to Bill C-55 can now proceed. The Senate proceeded to the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, seconded by the Honourable Senator Callbeck, for the adoption of the Twelfth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications (Bill C-55, An Act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers, with amendments) presented in the Senate on May 31, 1999.
After debate, The Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lavoie-Roux, seconded by the Honourable Senator Butts, for the second reading of Bill S-29, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Protection of Patients and Health Care Providers).After debate, The Honourable Senator Carstairs moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. Orders No. 2 to 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Private Bills
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.Reports of Committees
Orders No. 1 to 4 were called and postponed until the next sitting. Resuming debate on the consideration of the Sixteenth Report (Interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce entitled: "The Governance Practices of Institutional Investors", tabled in the Senate on November 19, 1998.After debate, Further debate on the consideration of the Report was adjourned until the next sitting in the name of the Honourable Senator Meighen. Order No. 6 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Orders No. 114 (motion) 78, 68, 50, 34, 39, 64, 77, 73 and 61 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting. Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Spivak, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cochrane:That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to maintain Canada's current regulation of caffeine as food additive in soft drink beverages until such time as there is evidence that any proposed change will not result in a detriment to the health of Canadians and, in particular, to children and young people.
After debate, The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. Orders No. 46, 49, 44 (inquiries), 1, 118, 45 (motions), 63 (inquiry), 127 (motion), 47, 65, 69, 58, 59 and 67 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
INQUIRIES
The Honourable Senator Poy called the attention of the Senate to the Dragon Boat Festival.After debate, The Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rossiter, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
____________________________________________
With leave, The Senate reverted to Government Notices of Motions.With leave of the Senate, The Honourable Senator Carstairs moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Monday next, June 7, 1999, at 4:00 p.m.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 28(2):
Reports of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions required by the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act for the period ended March 31, 1999, pursuant to the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, sbs. 72(2) and the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, sbs. 72(2).-Sessional Paper No. 1/36-1179.ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Carstairs moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kenny:That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.