Journals of the Senate
50 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2001, Canada
Journals of the Senate
1st Session, 37th Parliament
Issue 71
Wednesday, November 21, 2001
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Angus, Austin, Bacon, Banks, Beaudoin, Biron, Bolduc, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finestone, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kinsella, Kolber, Kroft, Lapointe, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Mahovlich, Milne, Moore, Morin, Murray, Oliver, Pearson, Phalen, Pitfield, Poulin (Charette), Prud'homme, Rivest, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, St. Germain, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Tunney, Watt, Wilson
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, *Andreychuk, Angus, Austin, Bacon, Banks, Beaudoin, Biron, Bolduc, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, *Cordy, *Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finestone, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, *Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, *Kenny, Kinsella, Kolber, Kroft, *LaPierre, Lapointe, *Lawson, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Mahovlich, *Meighen, Milne, Moore, Morin, Murray, *Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Phalen, Pitfield, Poulin (Charette), Prud'homme, Rivest, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, St. Germain, Stollery, Stratton, Taylor, Tkachuk, Tunney, Watt, *Wiebe, Wilson
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Documents
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., tabled the following:
Response of the Government to the Fifth Report (Interim) of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages entitled: Study on the Bilingual Services Offered by Air Canada, tabled in the Senate on June 12, 2001.—Sessional Paper No. 1/37-579S.
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Stollery, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, presented its Seventh Report (Bill C-32, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica) without amendment.
The Honourable Senator Stollery moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Adams, 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.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
The Order was called for the second reading of Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C.:
That, notwithstanding Rule 63(1), the proceedings on Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which took place on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, be declared null and void.
After debate,
In amendment, the Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that the motion be amended by adding the following:
"; and
That a message be sent to the House of Commons informing that House of this decision and that the Senate attends any message that the House of Commons may have regarding this matter.''
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.
Accordingly, the Order of the Day for the second reading of Bill C-33, An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, was discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
Reports of Committees
The Order was called to resume debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., for the adoption of the Tenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, with amendments) presented in the Senate on November 8, 2001.
SPEAKER'S RULING
On Tuesday, November 20, Senator Milne in her capacity as the Chair of the Standing Committee of Legal and Constitutional Affairs moved the adoption of its 10th report which seeks to amend Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts.
At the conclusion of her remarks summarizing the various amendments that the Committee was recommending be made to the bill, Senator Milne indicated that she herself would be voting against the adoption of the report. For this reason, Senator Milne also declined subsequently to answer any questions about the report following her summation. The declaration of Senator Milne that she intended to vote against the report caused Senator Lynch- Staunton to rise on a point of order. While commending the Chair for her honesty, the Leader of the Opposition questioned the procedural propriety of having a Chair sponsor a report that she does not support. Senator Lynch-Staunton asked me, as the Speaker, to make a ruling with respect to this practice.
This request was followed by several interventions. Senator Taylor noted that an incident similar to this one had happened before. He is right, as it turns out. It occurred in 1997 when Senator Ghitter as Chair of the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources presented a report on Bill C-29, the MMT bill, to which he disagreed. On this occasion, I can find no evidence that the Senator actually voted against the bill, since no recorded vote was taken. There are, however, two other more telling examples. The first occurred with respect to Bill C-68, dealing with gun control. A report was presented November 20, 1995 by the Chair of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, at that time Senator Beaudoin. Two days later, the Chair voted against the adoption of the report in a recorded division. The second example dates from January 1991. At that time, the Chair of Transport and Communications, former Senator Findlay MacDonald, presented a report on Bill C-40, dealing with broadcasting. When the recorded vote on the report was taken, the results confirm that Senator MacDonald voted against it.
In a subsequent intervention, Senator Taylor referred to citation 873 in the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which explains the obligation of a Committee Chair, or someone else delegated for the purpose, to sign a report on behalf of the Committee in order to authenticate it. This is done whether or not the Chair actually supports the report adopted by the Committee.
The position taken by Senator Taylor dovetailed with remarks previously made by Senator Kinsella who had based much of his comments on the meaning of Senate Rules 98 and 99. These two rules require that a committee recommending amendments to a bill to report these amendments and the Senator presenting the report "shall explain to the Senate the basis for and the effect of each amendment.'' And according to Senator Robichaud, this is exactly what Senator Milne had done. As Chair of the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Senator Milne presented the report on Thursday, November 8 and yesterday, she moved its adoption and provided an explanation of its recommendations.
For her part, Senator Cools took a somewhat different position. In her view, the Chair, like every other member of the committee, is bound by its decisions. According to the Senator, it is only through a process of debate in this Chamber, that any member of the committee, or perhaps of the Senate for that matter, can come to a position different from that stated in the committee's report. Senator Cools also referred to rule 99 which, as she interprets it, imposes an obligation on the sponsor of the report to provide a suitable and proper explanation of the amendments recommended by a committee.
Senator Corbin also intervened on this point of order. Speaking just before Senator Cools, Senator Corbin made two points. First, the Senator explained that a committee Chair functions as a messenger of the Committee and is bound by this function to present its report to the Senate. Such a role, he stated, does not commit the Chair "ideologically, morally, personally or in any other fashion to the contents of the report.'' Second, in response to Senator Kinsella, Senator Corbin noted that anyone wishing to know the position of individual committee members with respect to the amendments can consult the transcripts of the committee's deliberations.
I want to thank all Honourable Senators who spoke to this point of order yesterday. I have reviewed the authorities that were cited and have looked at our relevant precedents. Not wishing to delay unduly the proceedings on this report, I am prepared to make my ruling now.
In ruling on this point of order, I am conscious of the need not to interfere with the legitimate proceedings of a committee. I do not believe that I am since we are dealing with the report of the committee in this Chamber. I have been asked to determine whether or not it is procedurally acceptable for a Chair of a committee to present a report of that committee even though the Chair disagrees with it and, in fact, has stated an intention to vote against it.
In order to answer this point of order adequately, I think it is useful to review briefly the process that we follow in considering legislation. Once a bill has been adopted at second reading and agreed to in principle, it is usually assigned to a committee for detailed examination. This normally involves hearing witnesses prior to going through the bill clause-by-clause. At this stage, it is proper to consider amendments which, if adopted, become the basis of the committee's report which it must make to the Senate according to rule 98. Further, rule 99 requires that the Senator who is sponsoring the report to explain the basis for, and the effect of, each amendment. This is what happened yesterday, when Senator Milne spoke to the report on Bill C-7.
Our rules, however, are silent on the matter that was raised in the point of order by Senator Lynch-Staunton. Nonetheless, I think it is possible to come to an understanding as to whether or not what occurred is acceptable procedurally. Under our rules and practices, decisions of committees, just like those of the Senate itself, are made by the majority. There is no binding obligation for consensus or unanimity. The fact that a bill receives second reading, for example, does not mean that all members of the Senate agree with it and will no longer oppose the bill either at report stage or third reading. Nonetheless, the decision stands as a legitimate decision of the Senate and is, in this limited sense, binding. Similarly, in a committee, decisions are reached by a majority. There is no requirement for all committee members to agree in order for it to report a bill back to the Senate. Accordingly, it is possible that the Chair of the committee may disagree with all or part of a report. Nonetheless, as Senator Taylor pointed out through his reference to Beauchesne's, the Chair will sign the report authenticating it. And as Senator Corbin suggested, in presenting the report, the Chair is really acting as a messenger of the committee. Once the requirement of rule 99 to explain the amendments has been carried out, the Chair, or whoever is the sponsor of the report, is under no additional obligation. If the Chair should ever be uncomfortable in carrying out this function, arrangements can be made under our rules to find another member to act as sponsor of the report. Such a decision, however, does not rest with the Speaker. This can only be determined by the Chair as allowed under rule 97(1) which states that "a report from a select committee shall be presented by the chairman of the committee or by a Senator designated by the chairman.''
Accordingly, I find that there is no point of order in this case and debate on the report of the Committee on Bill C-7 can proceed.
The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., for the adoption of the Tenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, with amendments) presented in the Senate on November 8, 2001.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Adams, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Resuming debate on consideration of the First Report of the Special Committee of the Senate on the Subject-Matter of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism, tabled in the Senate on November 1, 2001.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chalifoux, 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 Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wiebe, for the second reading of Bill S-9, An Act to remove certain doubts regarding the meaning of marriage.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Finnerty moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Taylor, 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 and 3 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees
Orders No. 1 to 4 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Lapointe calling the attention of the Senate to the time allocated to tributes.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Adams, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted, on division.
Order No. 81 (motion) was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Roche, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C.:
That the Senate of Canada recommends that the Government of Canada avoid involvement and support for the development of a National Missile Defence (NMD) system that would run counter to the legal obligations enshrined in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which has been a cornerstone of strategic stability and an important foundation for international efforts on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation for almost thirty years,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, that the subject-matter of this motion be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Defence and Security for study and report back to the Senate.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gustafson, that further debate on the motion in amendment be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 73 (motion) and 26 (inquiry) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the issue of biological weapons and bio-warfare.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Bacon moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Callbeck, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
_______________________________________________
Ordered, That all remaining Orders be postponed until the next sitting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C.:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 3:33 p.m. the Senate was continued until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.)
_______________________________________________
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
The name of the Honourable Senator Jaffer substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Fraser (November 20).
The name of the Honourable Senator Fairbairn substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Jaffer (November 21).
Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries
The name of the Honourable Senator Callbeck removed from the membership (November 20).
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The name of the Honourable Senator Grafstein substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Mahovlich (November 20).