Journals of the Senate
48 Elizabeth II, A.D. 1999, Canada
Journals of the Senate
2nd Session, 36th Parliament
Issue 21
Tuesday, December 14, 1999
2:00 p.m.
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Beaudoin, Berntson, Bolduc, Boudreau, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Christensen, Cochrane, Cohen, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, De Bané, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finestone, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Ghitter, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Grimard, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Meighen, Mercier, Milne, Molgat, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Perry (Poirier), Pitfield, Poulin (Charette), Prud'homme, Rivest, Roberge, Robichaud, (L'Acadie-Acadia), Robichaud, (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Rompkey, Rossiter, Ruck, St. Germain, Sibbeston, Simard, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Watt, Wilson,
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, *Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Beaudoin, Berntson, Bolduc, Boudreau, Buchanan, Callbeck, *Carney, Carstairs, Christensen, Cochrane, Cohen, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, De Bané, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finestone, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Ghitter, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Grimard, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Meighen, Mercier, Milne, Molgat, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Perry (Poirier), Pitfield, Poulin (Charette), Prud'homme, Rivest, Roberge, Robichaud, (L'Acadie-Acadia), Robichaud, (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Rompkey, Rossiter, Ruck, St. Germain, Sibbeston, Simard, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Watt, Wilson,
PRAYERS
Tribute was paid to the memory of the Honourable Senator Balfour, whose death occurred December 12, 1999.
The Senate observed a minute of silence.
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Losier-Cool presented the following:TUESDAY, December 14, 1999
The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages has the honour to present its
SECOND REPORT
The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages adopted the following resolution in Committee on December 7, 1999:BE IT RESOLVED, - That, in the opinion of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, the Ontario legislature should determine, by way of legislation, that the City of Ottawa, as Canada's capital, has two official languages, English and French.
The Committee agreed, that, while matters concerning municipalities are within the jurisdiction of the provinces, Ottawa, as the capital of Canada, presents a special case and should reflect the bilingual nature of Canada through its two official languages, English and French.
Respectfully submitted,
ROSE-MARIE LOSIER-COOL
Joint Chair
The Honourable Senator Losier-Cool moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Grafstein, 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.
With leave of the Senate, The Honourable Senator Stollery presented the following:
TUESDAY, December 14, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs has the honour to present its
REVISED FIFTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred the Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station and to make related amendments to other Acts, has examined the said Bill in obedience to its Order of Reference dated December 1, 1999, and now reports the same without amendment, but with the following observations:The Committee has two specific concerns that it wishes to see addressed. First, the Committee is keenly interested in perusing (a) the regulations deemed by the Governor in Council to be required to carry out the purposes of the Act and to give effect to the above-mentioned Agreement, and (b) the Code of Conduct that will establish the chain of command affecting the astronauts on the space station. The Committee, concerned about the insufficient scope of the provision for notification to Parliament contained in Clause 10 of Bill C-4, requests that the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Space Agency, refer both the said regulations and the Code of Conduct directly to the Committee immediately following their initial publication in The Canada Gazette.
Second, Clause 11(2.34) fails to contain a definition of the term "Canadian flight element" employed in the English version of Clause 11(2.31)(b). The Committee is of the view that there is a need for new wording within the English version of Clause 11(2.31)(b) that would remove the existing ambiguity between the terms "flight element provided by Canada" and "Canadian flight element" and, moreover, ensure a consistency between the English and French versions of the Bill. The Government of Canada, in the omnibus bill that is anticipated shortly, should clarify Clause 11(2.31) so as to alleviate the Committee's concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
PETER STOLLERY
Chairman
Government Notices of Motions
With leave of the Senate, The Honourable Senator Hays moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon:That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 15, 1999, at 1:30 p.m.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
A Message was brought from the House of Commons with a Bill C-9, An Act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, to which they desire the concurrence of the Senate.The Bill was read the first time.
The Honourable Senator Austin, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., that the Bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading on Thursday next, December 16, 1999.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. A Message was brought from the House of Commons with a Bill C-21, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2000, to which they desire the concurrence of the Senate.
The Bill was read the first time.
With leave of the Senate, The Honourable Senator Hays moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., that the Bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading at the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations
The Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., tabled the following:Third Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the 45th Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, from November 11 to 15, 1999.-Sessional Paper No. 2/36-207.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Third reading of Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station and to make related amendments to other Acts.The Honourable Senator Stollery moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Sibbeston, that the Bill be read the third time.
Debate.
Ordered, That Inquiry No. 1, standing in the name of the Honourable Senator Gauthier, be brought forward. The Honourable Senator Gauthier called the attention of the Senate to the recent Francophonie Summit, which was held in Moncton September last.
After debate, The Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nolin, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Bills
The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Stollery, seconded by the Honourable Senator Sibbeston, for the third reading of Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station and to make related amendments to other Acts.After debate, The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
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 have passed this Bill, without amendment. Third reading of Bill S-3, An Act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols between Canada and Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Japan and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gauthier, that the Bill be read the third time.
After debate, The Honourable Senator Kinsella for the Honourable Senator Andreychuk 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.
Motions
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kroft, seconded by the Honourable Senator Furey:That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
After debate, The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on division. The Honourable Senator Hays moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon:
That the Address be engrossed and presented to Her Excellency the Governor General by the Honourable the Speaker.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. The Order was called to resume debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hays, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mercier:
That the proceedings on the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the motion for an Address in reply to Her Excellency the Governor General's Speech from the Throne addressed to both Houses of Parliament be concluded on the eighth sitting day on which the order is debated,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, that the motion be not now adopted but that it be amended by striking out the word "eighth" and substituting the word "fourteenth".
Ordered, That the motion in amendment be withdrawn, the Order discharged and the motion withdrawn.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.Second reading of Bill S-13, An Act to assist in the prevention of wrongdoing in the Public Service by establishing a framework for education on ethical practices in the workplace, for dealing with allegations of wrongdoing and for protecting whistleblowers.
The Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, that the Bill be read the second time.
After debate, The Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finnerty, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. The Order was called to resume debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, for the second reading of Bill S-7, An Act respecting the declaration of Royal Assent by the Governor General in the Queen's name to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Sparrow, that the Bill be not now read a second time but be read a second time when its sponsor fulfills the condition required by the law of Parliament that is necessary and preliminary to the passage in Parliament of a private member's bill altering the Royal Prerogative, that preliminary condition being the signification of Her Majesty's Royal Consent to Parliament's consideration of Her Majesty's interests in Bill S-7's proposed limitation and alteration to the manner, form, and style of Her Majesty's Royal Assent in Canada, which is simultaneously an alteration to the constitution of the Senate.
SPEAKER'S RULING
On December 1, during debate on the second reading of Bill S-7, respecting the declaration of Royal Assent by the Governor General in the Queen's name, Senator Cools proposed an amendment. This amendment would have the effect of postponing the second reading of the bill until its sponsor, Senator Lynch-Staunton, obtains the signification of Royal Consent. Senator Cools maintained that this was necessary given that the bill, in her view, affects the Royal Prerogative.Shortly thereafter, Senator Lynch-Staunton rose on a point of order to challenge the amendment. He claimed that Bill S-7 does not affect the Royal Prerogative and, consequently, that the amendment goes beyond the content of the bill and is out of order. Senator Carstairs and then Senator Kinsella spoke in support of Senator Lynch-Staunton's basic position. Senator Carstairs noted that the bill is intended to provide an alternative to the current ceremony of Royal Assent, not to eliminate it as an essential requirement to the enactment of bills passed by Parliament. For his part, Senator Kinsella suggested that the amendment seemed to be imposing an unnecessary restriction on the ability of any Senator to bring forward legislation.
In reply to these objections, Senator Cools denied that her amendment sought to impose any limitation on anyone. In this instance, however, Senator Cools maintained that since the bill would affect the Royal Prerogative by altering the Sovereign's powers with respect to Royal Assent, some evidence must be provided that the Governor General or Her Majesty the Queen consent to the proposal contained in Bill S-7. As an example, Senator Cools cited debate that occurred in the United Kingdom in 1911 during consideration of the Parliament Act which provided authority for Parliament to adopt legislation bypassing the House of Lords.
Since this point of order was raised, I have studied the matter and I am now prepared to rule on it. Let me begin by stating that, to my mind, there seem to be two distinct parts to this point of order. One, of course, has to do with the matter of the Royal Prerogative. The second relates to the kind of amendments that are permitted at second reading. I will begin with the second element first.
Second reading involves a decision of the Senate on the principle of the bill, whether the Senate accepts its basic intent or not. This focus on the bill's principle has led to a practice that limits the kind of amendments that can be moved at this stage. Leaving aside the motion for the previous question, which is a superseding motion, there are basically two kinds of amendments that are permitted at second reading - the hoist amendment and the reasoned amendment.
The hoist amendment seeks to postpone the consideration of a bill by proposing that the bill be read "this day six (or three) months hence." The form of the motion is well established; it was developed in British Parliament more than two centuries ago to circumvent the narrow meaning of the word "now" in the standard motion for second reading "That such and such a bill be now read a second time." Nowadays, it is more often used to prolong debate since it allows those who have already spoken on the main motion an opportunity to speak again.
A reasoned amendment, on the other hand, provides the means to put on the record, in the form of a motion, a statement or explanation as to why a bill should not receive second reading. By practice, as is explained in the 6th Edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms at citation 670 on page 200, reasoned amendments fall into one of several categories. Reasoned amendments must be declaratory of some principle adverse to the principles or policies contained in the bill or they may express opinions as to the circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise oppose its progress. Furthermore, citation 671(3) on page 201 suggests that the reasoned amendment should not attach conditions to the second reading.
In the present case, the motion in amendment proposed by Senator Cools does not meet the requirements to be considered a reasoned amendment. This is because it clearly establishes a condition to be met prior to second reading. The amendment that Senator Cools proposed on December 1 reads as follows:
That Bill S-7 be not now read a second time, but be read a second time when the sponsor fulfills the condition required by the law of Parliament that is necessary and preliminary to the passage in Parliament of a private member's bill altering the Royal Prerogative, that preliminary condition being the signification of Her Majesty's Royal Consent to Parliament's consideration of Her Majesty's interests in Bill S-7's proposed limitation and alteration to the manner, form, and style of Her Majesty's Royal Assent in Canada, which is simultaneously an alteration to the constitution of the Senate.
Accordingly, the motion in amendment is not in order and cannot be put as an amendment to the second reading of Bill S-7. This, however, does not settle the matter entirely. As I indicated earlier, there are two aspects to this point of order. I have dealt with the reasoned amendment, it is now necessary to address the more substantive question concerning the possible need to signify Royal Consent.
As Senator Cools stated in her intervention, Royal Consent is required whenever a bill proposes to affect either the prerogative of the Crown, its hereditary revenues, personal property or interests. With respect to this case, there is no doubt that the only issue involved with Bill S-7 is that of the Royal Prerogative. The bill contains no provisions relating to the personal property or interests of the Queen. The question to be answered then is whether a bill providing an alternative to the ceremony of Royal Assent touches upon a prerogative power of the Crown.
In making the case, Senator Cools referred to comments made in the United Kingdom Parliament in 1911. I am not altogether certain how useful this case is as a guide to the present circumstances. The remarks of Lord Lansdowne indicated the need to obtain Royal Consent for bills affecting the Royal Prerogative, but it does not provide any indication as to the nature and extent of the Royal Prerogative, particularly with respect to Canada's constitutional practices. However, given the importance of the issue, I decided to look into it further. I felt compelled to do this because of the possible consequences. According to Beauchesne, the question of Royal Consent can be highly relevant to the final disposition of a bill. At citation 726(2) on page 213 of the 6th edition, it is stated that "the omission [of Royal Consent], when it is required, renders the proceedings on the passage of the bill null and void."
As many honourable Senators will know, this is not the first time that a Royal Assent bill has been debated in the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition sponsored an identical bill in the previous session. In fact, that bill was based on one that had been presented to the Senate some years before by the Leader of the Government at the time, Senator Murray. The bill gave legislative expression to a proposal that had been advanced some years before by Senator Frith who spoke to an inquiry on the subject of Royal Assent in 1983 that was subsequently followed up by a committee review. In 1985, the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders presented a report on the practice of Royal Assent that included a recommendation to draft a resolution for a joint Address to the Governor General seeking her approval to modify the Royal Assent ceremony. However, the report was never adopted by the Senate.
In my research, I also noted that when the British Parliament adopted a Royal Assent Act in 1967, Royal Consent was signified in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons prior to its passage. In fact, Royal Consent was announced before second reading, as Senator Cools has suggested be done with Bill S-7. On this point, Beauchesne notes at citation 726(2) that "Royal Consent is generally given at the earliest stage of debate." In the next paragraph, Beauchesne goes on to explain at citation 727(1) that "consent may be given at any stage of a bill before final passage: though in the House [of Commons] it is generally signified on the motion for second reading."
Furthermore, it seems that the practice of signifying Royal Consent in Canada has almost never involved both the Senate and the House of Commons. In the numerous instances when Royal Consent was sought and signified, I noted that it was usually signified in the House of Commons and rarely in the Senate. Indeed, I have found only one instance where Royal Consent was signified in this Chamber. It happened as long ago as 1951 just prior to second reading of Bill 192, an Act to amend the Petition of Right Act.
This Canadian practice of giving Royal Consent in the House of Commons was noted in the parliamentary authority, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada by Sir John Bourinot as long ago as 1884, when the first edition appeared. Indeed, an example dating from 1886 contained in the fourth edition of 1916 records an example of Royal Consent being signified to a Senate amendment to a Commons private bill in the House of Commons rather than the Senate. This then seems to be an accepted departure from what occurs in Westminster.
The question is what to do in the present circumstances. As I already explained, the issue cannot be addressed in the form of the reasoned amendment that Senator Cools proposed. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to raise the matter as a point of order, rather than as an amendment to the second reading motion. Nonetheless, even as a point of order, I have heard nothing that would compel me as Speaker to delay the debate on the second reading of Bill S-7. Royal Consent might be necessary; yet based on the Canadian precedents, it would appear that there is no binding requirement that Royal Consent be signified in this Chamber. Accordingly, I am prepared to rule that the amendment is out of order and that debate on the second reading of Bill S-7 should be allowed to continue. I would suggest, however, that if this bill receives second reading, the issue of Royal Consent be studied by the committee to which it is referred as part of its examination.
The Honourable Senator Poulin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, that debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, for the second reading of Bill S-7, 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 Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Callbeck, for the second reading of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate).
After debate, The Honourable Senator Hays moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C. (L'Acadie-Acadia), that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. Orders No. 6 to 8 were called and postponed until the next sitting. Second reading of Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration Act.
The Honourable Senator St. Germain, P.C., for the Honourable Senator Ghitter moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cohen, that the Bill be read the second time.
After debate, The Honourable Senator Hays moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
After debate, The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Commons Public Bills
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.Reports of Committees
Consideration of the Second Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications (airline industry restructuring), presented in the Senate on December 9, 1999.After debate, The Honourable Senator Forrestall for the Honourable Senator Johnson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nolin, that further debate on consideration of the Report be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. Consideration of the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (budgetary situation pertaining to committees), presented in the Senate on December 9, 1999.
The Honourable Senator Nolin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gauthier, that the Report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 3 and 4 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Orders No. 4 (motion) 9, 11 (inquiries) and 41 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting. Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin:That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be empowered to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000; and
That the Committee present its report no later than March 31, 2000,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C. (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), seconded by the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., that the motion be amended by adding, after the words "Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000", the following:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries be authorized to examine the expenditures set out in the Estimates for Fisheries and Oceans for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000; and"with the exception of Fisheries and Oceans Votes 1, 5 and 10;
That the Committee report no later than March 31, 2000.".
After debate, With leave of the Senate and pursuant to Rule 30, the motion in amendment was withdrawn.
The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin:
That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be empowered to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000; and
That the Committee present its report no later than March 31, 2000.
After debate, The question being put on the motion, it was adopted. Orders No. 5 (motion) 8, 7 and 6 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting. Order No. 2 (inquiry) was called and pursuant to Rule 27(3) was dropped from the Order Paper.
INQUIRIES
The Honourable Senator Grafstein called the attention of the Senate to the Report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the Eighth Annual Session of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), held in St. Petersburg, Russia, from July 6 to 10, 1999.Debate concluded. The Honourable Senator Poulin called the attention of the Senate to the decision of the Ontario Government not to adopt a recommendation to declare the proposed restructured City of Ottawa a bilingual region.
After debate, The Honourable Senator Fraser moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin, that further debate on the inquiry 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 28(2):
Agreement for RCMP Policing Services made on July 1, 1999, between Canada, New Brunswick, and the Maliseet Nation at Tobique, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sbs. 20(5).-Sessional Paper No. 2/36-196.Agreement for RCMP Policing Services made on April 28, 1999, between Canada, British Columbia, and the Kitsumkalum and Kitselas First Nations, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sbs. 20(5). -Sessional Paper No. 2/36-197.
Agreement for RCMP Policing Services made on February 19, 1999, between Canada and Alberta, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sbs. 20(5). -Sessional Paper No. 2/36-198.
Agreement for RCMP Policing Services made on March 23, 1999, between Canada, Saskatchewan and the Pelican Lake Witchekan Lake First Nations, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sbs. 20(5). -Sessional Paper No. 2/36-199.
Agreement for RCMP Policing Services made on February 16, 1999, between Canada, British Columbia and the Tsawwassen and Semiahmoo First Nations, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sbs. 20(5). -Sessional Paper No. 2/36-200.
Agreement for RCMP Policing Services made on February 17, 1999, between Canada, British Columbia and the Spallumcheen Indian Band, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sbs. 20(5).-Sessional Paper No. 2/36-201.
Agreement for RCMP Policing Services made on March 19, 1999, between Canada, Saskatchewan and the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sbs. 20(5).-Sessional Paper No. 2/36-202.
Agreement for RCMP Policing Services made on March 23, 1999, between Canada, Saskatchewan and the Yellow Quill First Nation, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sbs. 20(5).-Sessional Paper No. 2/36-203.
Agreement for RCMP Policing Services made on July 20, 1999, between Canada, Saskatchewan and the Birch Narrows First Nation, pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, sbs. 20(5).-Sessional Paper No. 2/36-204.
Report on the Carriage of Goods by Water Act dated December 1999, pursuant to the Act, S.C. 1993, c. 21, s. 4. -Sessional Paper No. 2/36-205.
Report of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, together with the Auditor General's report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1999, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1).-Sessional Paper No. 2/36-206.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Hays moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finnerty:That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.