Journals of the Senate
50 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2001, Canada
Journals of the Senate
1st Session, 37th Parliament
Issue 63
Thursday, October 25, 2001
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Beaudoin, Biron, Bolduc, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Fairbairn, Finestone, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lapointe, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Meighen, Moore, Morin, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pépin, Phalen, Poulin (Charette), Prud'homme, Rivest, Robichaud, Roche, Setlakwe, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Tunney, Watt, Wilson
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Angus, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Beaudoin, Biron, Bolduc, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Fairbairn, Finestone, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lapointe, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Meighen, Moore, Morin, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, *Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Poulin (Charette), Prud'homme, Rivest, Robichaud, Roche, Setlakwe, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Tunney, 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 Kolber, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, presented its Tenth Report (Bill S-31, An Act to implement agreements, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Slovenia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Senegal, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income) without amendment.
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finestone, 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.
Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations
The Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C., tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation at the 105th Inter- Parliamentary Conference and related meetings, held in Havana, Cuba, from March 28 to April 7, 2001.—Sessional Paper No. 1/37-533.
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
A Message was brought from the House of Commons to return Bill S-23, An Act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other Acts,
And to acquaint the Senate that the Commons have passed this Bill, without amendment.
_____________________________________________________
The Honourable the Speaker informed the Senate that a communication had been received from the Deputy Secretary to the Governor General.
The Communication was then read by the Honourable the Speaker as follows:
RIDEAU HALL
October 25, 2001
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Louise Arbour, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th day of October, 2001, at 3:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a certain Bill.
Yours sincerely,
Michèle Lévesque
Deputy Secretary Policy, Program and Protocol
The Honourable The Speaker of the Senate Ottawa
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cordy, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaPierre, for the third reading of Bill C-11, An Act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Roche moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Third reading of Bill C-14, An Act respecting shipping and navigation and to amend the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other Acts.
The Honourable Senator Callbeck moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, that the Bill be read the third time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Oliver moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 3 and 4 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Motions
Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C.:
That at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 30, 2001, the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole in order to receive officials from the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works and Government Services for a briefing on the procurement process for maritime helicopters,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forrestall, that the motion, as amended, be further amended by adding after "maritime helicopters'' the following sentence:
"And upon completion of this briefing to adjourn to the call of the Chair to hear further witnesses on matters pertaining to the maritime helicopter procurement process, in particular, Colonel Lee Myrhaugen, retired; Mr. Peter Smith, President of the Aerospace Industry Association; Staff Admiral G. Garnett, former Vice Chief of Defence Staff; Lieutenant General George MacDonald, Vice Chief of Defence Staff; and General L.C. Campbell, Chief of Air Staff and such other witnesses as the Committee may decide are necessary to determine the fairness and equity of the maritime helicopter procurement process as developed by the Government of Canada.''
After debate,
The question being put on the motion in amendment, it was negatived on division.
The Senate resumed debate on the motion, as amended, of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C.:
That at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 30, 2001, the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole in order to receive officials from the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works and Government Services for a briefing on the procurement process for maritime helicopters.
After debate,
In amendment, the Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Atkins, that the motion, as amended, be further amended by replacing the period at the end of the motion with the following:
; and
That television cameras be authorized in the Chamber to broadcast the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole, with the least possible disruption of the proceedings.
The question being put on the motion in amendment, it was adopted.
The question then being put on the main motion, as amended, it was adopted.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1, 2 and 4 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Second reading of Bill S-30, An Act to amend the Canada Corporations Act (corporations sole).
The Honourable Senator Atkins moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Keon, that the Bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Corbin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Christensen, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
_____________________________________________________
Pursuant to Rule 135(8), the proceedings were interrupted to resume after Royal Assent.
ROYAL ASSENT
The Senate adjourned during pleasure to await the arrival of the Honourable the Deputy of Her Excellency the Governor General.
After awhile, the Honourable Louise Arbour, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy of Her Excellency the Governor General, having come and being seated at the foot of the Throne—
The Honourable the Speaker commanded the Acting Usher of the Black Rod to proceed to the House of Commons and acquaint that House that:—
"It is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of Her Excellency the Governor General that they attend her immediately in the Senate Chamber.''
The House of Commons being come,
One of the Clerks at the table then read the title of the Bill to be assented to as follows:
An Act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (Bill S-23, Chapter 25, 2001).
To this Bill the Royal Assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
"In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy of Her Excellency the Governor General doth assent to this Bill.''
3:40 p.m.
The Commons withdrew.
After which the Honourable the Deputy of Her Excellency the Governor General was pleased to retire.
SPEAKER'S RULING
On June 5, 2001, Senator Joyal raised a point of order with respect to Bill S-20, An Act to provide for increased transparency and objectivity in the selection of suitable individuals to be named to certain high public positions, which was presented to the Senate by Senator Stratton. His contention was that because the bill seeks to establish compulsory procedures that Ministers must follow when nominating someone to fill certain high-profile public positions, it would affect the prerogative of the Crown. Accordingly, the Senator maintained that it appeared that Bill S-20 required Royal Consent.
Other Senators made comments on the point of order. Senator Stratton suggested that the matter could be discussed in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for determination. Senator Kinsella felt that the authority of the executive is not ultimately impeded by the bill. He made the point that nowhere did it state that the purpose of Bill S-20 is to impede the authority of the Crown in exercising its appointment powers. Instead, the bill sets in place some measures to assure transparency in making various appointments.
I thank all Honourable Senators for their comments. Having taken the question under advisement, I am now in a position to make my ruling. I will begin by reviewing the parliamentary authorities, then examine the meaning of the prerogative, review the thrust of Bill S-20 and consider whether the prerogative is affected by it, and finally consider the nature of royal consent and the procedural consequences of it being required.
Parliamentary Authorities
As Honourable Senators are aware, the Speaker does not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law. However, it is undoubtedly the duty of the Speaker to ensure that the proper procedure is followed even with respect to assessing bills that might require Royal Consent because the prerogative is somehow affected.
The obligation of the Chair to do this is admitted in our parliamentary authorities. Let me begin, however, with some references that explain when Royal Consent needs to be signified. Citation 726 (1) of Beauchesne's 6th edition, for example, provides:
"726. (1) The consent of the Sovereign (to be distinguished for the Royal Assent to Bills) is given by a Minister to bills (and occasionally amendments) affecting the prerogative, hereditary revenues, personal property or interest of the Crown.''
Marleau and Montpetit, House of Commons Procedure and Practices, pp. 643-644 states:
"Royal Consent ... is taken from British practices and is part of the unwritten rules and customs of the House of Commons of Canada. Any legislation that affects the prerogatives, hereditary revenues, property or interests of the Crown requires Royal Consent, that is, the consent of the Governor General in his or her capacity as representative of the Sovereign.''
Moreover, as is pointed out in Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, (4th edition), p. 413:
"the consent may be given at any stage before final passage, and is always necessary in matters involving the rights of the Crown, its patronage, or its prerogatives''.
As well, I also note with interest what the Leader of the Government in the Senate said with respect to the reasons for which Royal Consent was obtained for Bill S-34, the Royal Assent Act, which is now before one of our Committees. Senator Carstairs stated on page 1380 of the Senate Debates of October 4th, 2001:
"As Dicey's classic work The Law of the Constitution states, it is a longstanding parliamentary practice, politeness and civility to obtain royal consent in advance to any bill which might affect the royal prerogative or interest, whether the bill is in relation to the prerogative or not. In keeping with this practice, the government sought, obtained and has declared in this chamber royal consent to proceed with Bill S-34.''
Meaning of the Prerogative
Two commonly used definitions of the prerogative are those of Blackstone and Dicey. Blackstone describes it as: "that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the ordinary course of the common law, in right of his real dignity.''
For his part Dicey viewed the prerogative as the residue of discretionary power left in the hands of the Crown. Consequently, "[e]very Act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an act of Parliament is done in virtue of this prerogative''.
While the prerogative is obviously an important consideration in the United Kingdom, it is not without significance in Canada as well. According to Paul Lordon, Q.C. author of Crown Law, at p.61:
"As a general rule, the prerogative of the Crown in Canada exists to the same extent as in England. The Constitution Act, 1867 did not detract from or in any way affect its form or content.''
And at p. 71:
"In Canada, prerogatives are exercised by the Governor General at the federal level and by the Lieutenant- Governor in each province. As members of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister and other ministers also have some powers of the nature of prerogatives.''
Bill S-20
Turning now turn to Bill S-20, there is no doubt that its object is to legislate with respect to the appointment process for certain public positions. The bill proposes to establish a committee of the Queen's Privy Council to develop selection criteria and procedures, that is a process to identify and assess candidates and to provide for a review by the Senate of these appointments. Nominations to the positions of Governor General, Chief Justice of Canada, Speaker of the Senate, Lieutenant Governor of a province, Commissioner of a territory, and to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Senate, must be reviewed, while appointments to the Federal Court of Canada and to the superior courts in the provinces may be reviewed.
I must note, however, that the bill seems carefully structured not to change the power of the Sovereign or of the Governor General to make appointments directly. Its scope is limited to governing the actions of their advisors in recommending appointments to be made.
Bill S-20 and the Prerogative
Of particular concern to Senator Joyal, when he raised his point of order, was the matter of the appointment of the Governor General because it is an appointment that is made by the Queen.
In my view, it is a direct exercise of the royal prerogative. According to Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd edition), at p. 10:
"...the Crown possessed certain prerogative legislative powers over British colonies. These powers are mainly of historical interest for Canada today; but ... the office of Governor General still depends upon a prerogative instrument.''
This prerogative instrument is the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General, 1947, which is still in force.
I conclude, therefore, that, at least with respect to the office of the Governor General, Bill S-20 is about a matter involving a prerogative of the Crown.
This conclusion leads to the next question: does Bill S-20 "affect'' the prerogative, that is to say, the exercise by Her Majesty of the prerogative power to create the office of Governor General. The passages from Beauchesne and Marleau and Montpetit, mentioned that the prerogative must be affected for consent to be required.
Under the conventions developed under our Constitution to provide for representative government, the Sovereign acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. Conventions are not legal rules in that they are not capable of enforcement in the courts. However, the Letters Patent provides that the Governor General is to be appointed by Commission under the Great Seal, which means that the signatures of the Sovereign, the Prime Minister and the Registrar General are all required on the Commission to appoint a Governor General.
Therefore, until the 1947 Letters Patent are amended or revoked, the participation of the Prime Minister in the naming of a Governor General is required in law. Furthermore, since the appointment of a Governor General is an exercise of the prerogative and since the participation of the Prime Minister in an appointment is necessary, the Sovereign is legally entitled to the advice of the Prime Minister on the exercise of Her rights.
The operation of Bill S-20 could give rise to situations in which Her Majesty would be deprived of the ability to make an appointment on advice. I conclude that Her exercise of the prerogative is affected in that, while the bill may preserve the prerogative, it would have an impact on its exercise.
The Royal Consent
Having now arrived at the conclusion that Bill S-20 affects the prerogative, I must conclude that it requires the royal consent. But what is the royal consent?
Marleau and Montpetit state the following on page 644:
"It may be given in the form of a special message, but normally it is transmitted by a Minister who rises in the House and states: `Her Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the purport of this bill and has given her consent, as far as Her Majesty's prerogatives are affected, to the consideration by Parliament of the bill, that Parliament may do therein as it thinks fit'.''
In the case of Bill C-20, the Clarity Act, in the last session, and Bill S-34 of this session, a variation was used.
There is no known example in Canada of consent being refused. This raises the issue of whether a convention may have evolved here that consent will be granted, making the request for it a formality. The alternative is that, by operation of an advice that consent will not be forthcoming, Parliament could actually be prevented from debating a legislative measure that members considered to be in the public interest.
A possible reason to refuse consent may be to prevent debate. However, note should be taken that consent does not mean endorsement. Marleau and Montpetit note at p. 644 that:
"The fact that the Crown agrees to give consent does not, however, mean that it approves the substance of the measure: it merely means that it agrees to remove an obstacle to the progress of the bill so that it may be considered by both Houses, and ultimately submitted for Royal Assent.''
I would like to draw the attention of Honourable Senators to a precedent from Westminster where the Queen's Consent, what we term Royal Consent, was required for a private member's bill. This bill, entitled "Crown Prerogatives (Parliamentary Control) Bill'', was proposed by a backbencher, Mr. Tony Benn, and sought to provide a parliamentary role to the exercise of a whole range of prerogative powers. The object of the bill, as I understand it, was to subject these prerogative powers to the approval of the House of Commons through an affirmative resolution. In the end, the bill was finally dropped from the Order Paper, but not before receiving the Queen's Consent, signified by a Minister of the Crown, when the bill was scheduled for second reading. This Consent was given despite the fact that there was no indication at all of the Government's agreement to the bill. This highlights another important characteristic of Royal Consent. The fact that consent is signified or accorded to a bill does not necessarily mean that the bill is supported or approved either by the Crown or its advisors. Therefore, it is important to note that there is a tradition, at least at Westminster, that the Government does not use its unique access to the Crown to limit debate, since it is not bound by convention to support matters which require Royal Consent.
Parliamentary Practice
Honourable Senators, when this point of order was raised I accepted to take it under advisement, but ruled at the time that, while the point of order was under advisement, debate on the bill might proceed. Now that I have ruled that consent is required, it continues to be the case that debate on the bill may proceed.
In support, I note the precedents where consent is given in one House to legislation originating in the other. Bourinot's records an example of consent being signified in the House of Commons, rather than the Senate, to a Senate amendment to a Commons private bill. I also note Bills S-2, S-6 and S-25 in the 2nd Session, Twenty-Fourth Parliament, which lasted from January 15, 1959 to July 18, 1959, where consent was signified to Senate bills in the House of Commons after the bills had passed the Senate. Royal consent has also been signified with respect to House of Commons bills in this Chamber; in 1951, just prior to second reading of Bill 192, An Act to amend the Petition of Right Act, and most recently, on June 29, 2000, to Bill C-20, the Clarity Act, just prior to third reading.
In the 1999 ruling in this House, the Speaker noted that this was "an accepted departure from the practice at Westminster'' (where consent in signified in each House), and also noted that "based upon the Canadian precedents, it would appear that there is no binding precedent that royal consent be signified in this Chamber.''
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 3 (Bill S-20) and 6 (Bill S-21) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees
Orders No. 1 to 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to three diseases which are sweeping the developing world and which draw many to ask whether intellectual property rights over patented medicines haven't taken precedence over the protection of human life.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Fraser moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley, that further debate on the inquiry 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 Pépin:
That the Senate:
- Considering Resolutions 1368 and 1373 adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations on September 12, and September 28, supporting initiatives to eradicate international terrorism that threaten peace, security, human rights and freedoms and the political order of the free and democratic society;
- Considering that in its special session of October 2, 2001, the North Atlantic Council determined that "the attack against the United States on 11 September was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all'';
- Condemn unequivocally the use of violence and terrorism to overthrow the democratic order and the elimination of human rights and freedoms;
- Support the decision of the Government calling upon the Canadian Armed Forces on active service to join the international campaign against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11;
- Express its preoccupation that humanitarian support be given to the civilians affected by that campaign;
- Express its urgent concern that the authors and supporters of those terrorists attacks are brought to justice accordingly;
- Express its strong belief that it is through negotiation and peace settlement that legitimate claims of the States should be dealt with in the International Order; and
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion should be deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence and Security for study and report back to the Chamber in the next 30 days.
After debate,
Further debate on the motion was adjourned until the next sitting in the name of the Honourable Senator Stratton.
Orders No. 80 (motion), 16 (inquiry), 3 (motion), 18, 20 (inquiries), 65 (motion) and 7 (inquiry) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Gauthier calling the attention of the Senate to the current negotiations on the renewal of the broadcasting agreement between the Senate and CPAC (the Cable Public Affairs Channel) to ensure that they include the closed-captioning of parliamentary debates authorized for television, and that the renewal of this agreement reflect the commitments made by CPAC on services for the hearing impaired.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Corbin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 6, 11, 10, 22, 23 (inquiries), 73, 44 (motions), 8 (inquiry) and 54 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare:
That the Senate endorse and support the following policy from Liberal Red Book 1, which recommends the appointment of "an independent Ethics Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and report directly to Parliament.'';
And that this Resolution be sent to the Speaker of the House of Commons so that he may acquaint the House of Commons with this decision of the Senate.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Losier-Cool moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Léger:
That the Senate of Canada recommends that the Government of Canada recognize the date of August 15th as Fête nationale des Acadiens et Acadiennes, given the Acadian people's economic, cultural and social contribution to Canada.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Kinsella for the Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino, that further debate on the motion 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 Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C.:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday next, October 30, 2001, at 2:00 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):
Report of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, together with the Auditors' Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, pursuant to the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, S.C. 1997, c. 26, sbs. 29(3).—Sessional Paper No. 1/ 37-532.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chalifoux:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 5:03 p.m. the Senate was continued until Tuesday next, October 30, 2001, at 2:00 p.m.)
_____________________________________________________
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce
The names of the Honourable Senators Callbeck and Furey substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Furey and Callbeck (October 24).
Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
The names of the Honourable Senators Kenny and Cook substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Hervieux-Payette and Kenny (October 24).
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The name of the Honourable Senator Chalifoux substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Pearson (October 24).
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The name of the Honourable Senator Christensen substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Furey (October 24).
Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations
The name of the Honourable Senator Stratton substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Kinsella (October 24).