Journals of the Senate
51 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2002, Canada
Journals of the Senate
1st Session, 37th Parliament
Issue 122
Tuesday, June 11, 2002
2:00 p.m.
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, Baker, Banks, Beaudoin, Biron, Bolduc, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Eyton, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lapointe, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Meighen, Milne, Moore, Morin, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Rivest, Robertson, Robichaud, Roche, Rossiter, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tunney
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, *Bacon, Baker, Banks, Beaudoin, Biron, Bolduc, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, *Cordy, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Eyton, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kelleher, *Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lapointe, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Meighen, Milne, Moore, Morin, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Rivest, Robertson, Robichaud, Roche, Rossiter, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, *Taylor, Tunney
PRAYERS
Tribute was paid to the Honourable Senator Tunney, who will retire from the Senate on June 16, 2002.
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Documents
The Honourable the Speaker tabled the following:
Report of the Information Commissioner for the period ended March 31, 2002, pursuant to the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, s. 38.—Sessional Paper No. 1/37-819.
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Austin, P.C., Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, presented its Fourteenth Report entitled: Modernizing the Senate from Within: Updating the Senate Committee Structure— Issues Raised by Individual Senators.
(The Report is printed as an Appendix)
The Honourable Senator Austin, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., 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.
Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
A Message was brought from the House of Commons with a Bill C-59, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2003, to which they desire the concurrence of the Senate.
The Bill was read the first time.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, 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.
__________________________________________________________
Ordered, That Motion No. 145 standing in the name of the Honourable Senator Chalifoux be brought forward.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Chalifoux moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne:
That notwithstanding the Order of the Senate adopted on September 27, 2001, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, which was authorized to examine issues affecting urban Aboriginal youth, be empowered to present its final report no later than December 19, 2002.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Third reading of Bill S-41, An Act to re-enact legislative instruments enacted in only one official language.
The Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Callbeck, that the Bill be read the third time.
After debate,
In amendment, the Honourable Senator Milne moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chalifoux, that the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be amended in clause 9, on page 3, by replacing subclause (3) with the following:
"(3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall, in respect of legislative instruments of a class referred to in subsection 15(3) of the Statutory Instruments Regulations, set out only the number of such instruments that are of the types described in paragraphs (2)(b) and (c).''.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion in amendment, it was adopted.
The question then being put on the motion for the third reading of the Bill, as amended, it was adopted.
The Bill, as amended, 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 to which they desire their concurrence.
Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Third reading of Bill C-43, An Act to amend certain Acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act.
The Honourable Senator Day moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Léger, that the Bill be read the third time.
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 C-27, An Act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.
The Honourable Senator Gauthier moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Jaffer, that the Bill be read the third time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Spivak moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Eyton, 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 Tabling of Documents.
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., tabled the following:
Document entitled: A Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State.—Sessional Paper No. 1/37-820.
Guidelines on the Ministry and Crown Corporations. —Sessional Paper No. 1/37-821.
The Ministry and Activities for Personal Political Purposes Guidelines.—Sessional Paper No. 1/37-822.
Bills
Third reading of Bill C-47, An Act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores.
The Honourable Senator Kroft moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, that the Bill be read the third time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nolin, 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 Fraser, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley, for the second reading of Bill C-15B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.
SPEAKER'S RULING
On Wednesday, June 5, Senator St. Germain raised a question of privilege with respect to Bill C-15B, a bill amending the Criminal Code with respect to cruelty to animals. The Senator's complaint revolves around a press release issued by Mr. Murray Calder, M.P. This document urged members of the Liberal Rural Caucus "to support the government's cruelty to animals legislation on the understanding that the bill can be amended in the Senate.'' As it happened, the bill passed the House of Commons June 4th and it is now before the Senate.
According to Senator St. Germain, the press release is offensive because it suggests, in his view, that the Senate is being used to secure the support of some backbench MPs who had been prepared to vote against the bill. The Senator cited this passage of the press release in making this point: "Previously Calder had indicated that he and others would vote against the bill unless it could be amended. The breakthrough came when Justice Minister Cauchon agreed that he would look favourably on a rural caucus initiated amendment in the Senate that would offer limited assurances to responsible animal owners.''
It is Senator St. Germain's contention that this kind of political strategy or manipulation diminishes the role and independence of the Senate. It suggests that, from the public's perspective, it is the Minister of Justice, not the Senate, who will determine the outcome of amendments proposed in the Senate.
Citing previous rulings by a Speaker of the House of Commons, Senator St. Germain asked the Speaker of the Senate to find a prima facie question of privilege asserting that, if the Senate is to function with authority and dignity, it must be respected, especially by Members of the House of Commons and the Executive.
There were interventions by several Senators supporting the position of Senator St. Germain. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Lynch-Staunton, as well as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Kinsella, spoke in support of the question of privilege. As Senator Lynch-Staunton put it: " ... we are being practically instructed, once we get this bill, to look with favour on an amendment that we have not even seen. ...If that is not an attack on our privilege, I do not know what is.''
To buttress his case, Senator Lynch Staunton cited the 21st edition of the British parliamentary authority, Erskine May, dealing with the broad definition of contempt, which can be any act or omission that obstructs or impedes either House in the performance of it functions to be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
Senator Kinsella raised at least two inter-related points in arguing on behalf of the question of privilege. The Senator suggested first that the promise of the Minister of Justice, as he put it, to amend the bill in the Senate goes to the essence of the matter of a breach of privilege. This is evident, according to Senator Kinsella, who cited the 6th edition of Beauchesne where it states that "It is generally accepted that any threat, or attempt to influence the vote of, or actions of a Member, is breach of privilege.'' The Senator's second point has to do with an element of the argument that was made by Senator St. Germain as well. This has to do with the public perception of the Senate. In his opinion, the Senate will be viewed as a "laughing stock,'' irrelevant to the proper functioning of Parliament because its reputation is being undermined.
For his part, Senator Corbin seemed more offended by the actions of the House of Commons in passing a bill that he described as "incomplete or defective''. While sympathetic to Senator St Germain, Senator Corbin explained that if he were a member of the other place, he would raise the question of privilege there.
Several other Senators argued against the alleged question of privilege. The Deputy Leader of the Government, Senator Robichaud, found the statements of the press release to be basically neutral. According to the Senator, it did not assert, one way or the other, that amendments would be made in the Senate. To prove his point, the Senator cited an answer of the Justice Minister during Question Period when he said "We must be careful and respect the Senate's processes. There are different stages ... The Senate will have to look at the bill. We will see what takes place at the time.''
Though also opposed to the question of privilege, Senator Taylor had a different view of the press release. He claimed that it flattered the Senate because it suggests that the Minister is willing to accept an amendment proposed by the Senate if it wishes to make the change. Senator Fraser, on the other hand, questioned whether any alleged arrangement between the Liberal Rural Caucus and the Minister of Justice actually pre-empts the Senate's freedom to conduct its business. As the Senator noted, it does sometimes happen that when an amendment fails to get through in the other place, they are frequently proposed in the Senate in another attempt to get it through. It is important, however, as the Senator explained, to separate the question of what a Senate committee does from the question about whether the press release was in some way reprehensible.
Senator Fraser's position was subsequently echoed by Senator Milne, the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The Senator noted that the committee "rarely takes marching orders from anyone.'' Nor, as the Senator put it, does the committee make amendments lightly. Amendments are not made, she explained, unless evidence has been presented before the committee that supports those amendments.
I wish to thank all Honourable Senators who participated in the debate on this question of privilege. As rule 43 explains: "The preservation of the privileges of the Senate is the duty of every Senator. A violation of the privileges of any Senator affects those of all Senators and the ability of the Senate to carry out its functions...'' It is the responsibility of the Speaker to assist the Senate in this task by assessing all claims to a prima facie breach of privilege or a contempt against the rights and interests of the Senate.
In this particular case, it is alleged that the apparent understanding, as presented in the press release, between the Minister of Justice and some members of the other place with respect to amendments that might be proposed in the Senate actually infringes the rights of the Senate. It is viewed as calling into question the independence of the Senate and its autonomous authority to examine legislation. There are several aspects to this question that need to be assessed in order to determine its prima facie merits.
One argument that was made by Senator Kinsella in support of the breach of privilege suggested that the content of the press release somehow involved a threat or an attempt to influence the vote of a Member. This is a very serious charge. Any clear threat would obviously constitute a breach of privilege. So, too, would any attempt to influence the vote of a Member either through a bribe or some other means. No evidence was presented in the exchanges heard Wednesday that this is, in fact, the case. No Senator alleged that the content of the press release implied, directly or indirectly, any improper action on the part of the Minister or anyone else that would constitute a threat against any Senator or an attempt to influence the vote of any Senator through a bribe or any other illegitimate means. In my judgment, there is no substance to any claim of a prima facie breach of privilege based on these grounds.
Other Senators maintained that the press release amounted to a contempt against the Senate. Though it is admitted that contempt, unlike privilege, has no precise definition, the notion of contempt is reasonably well understood. Both Senator St. Germain and Senator Lynch-Staunton relied on this understanding in making their case. A contempt, as they explained it, must involve some action or omission that has the affect of obstructing or impeding the Senate from properly fulfilling its duties or functions, even though there is no precedent for the offence. The arrangement alleged to exist with the Minister of Justice based on the press release of Mr. Calder, they charged, is a contempt because it assumes or presumes that amendments will be made by the Senate. But is this really a contempt?
Referring to Erskine May on the subject of contempt, and in particular on constructive contempts, none of the examples cited in this British parliamentary authority resemble anything even broadly equivalent to what is alleged in this case. Among the constructive contempts reviewed are harsh reflections on the House, the publication of false or perverted reports of debates, and the premature publication of committee reports or proceedings. Erskine May also lists another category of offence that includes "other indignities offered to either House'', but none of the examples, which involve disorderly conduct or insolent language, either spoken or written, corresponds to the Calder press release. Without the benefit of further evidence, it is difficult for me as Speaker to rule that a prima facie case has been made that a contempt has been committed against the Senate.
Finally, it has also been argued that Bill C-15B is, in one way or another, defective or incomplete. The standard parliamentary authorities prohibit the introduction of bills that are blank or imperfect. When such a bill is identified, a point of order can be raised either to correct the bill or to discharge it. In this case, the bill is alleged to be defective. It has been asserted that the House of Commons may have passed Bill C-15B in anticipation of possible amendments in the Senate. Does this, however, properly constitute a question of privilege or a contempt? Any bill that comes to the Senate from the House of Commons is subject to amendment. It is the fundamental task of the Senate to review, revise and possibly reject legislation received from the other place. That the Senate can amend bills does not necessarily mean that the bill received from the House of Commons is defective. No suggestion has been made that Bill C-15B, as it is written now, is a defective piece of legislation from a procedural point of view. As Speaker, I have no basis to inquire into the bill and I have no authority to question the decision of the House of Commons that has passed this bill. I can see no question of privilege or contempt of the Senate based on the status of the bill itself.
Despite the fact that I have ruled that there is no basis for a prima facia question of privilege or contempt, I do share some sympathy with the concern that was expressed by some Senators about the press release. Any suggestion, however inadvertent, that any House of Parliament can be improperly influenced or manipulated should be avoided. Both Houses, the Senate and the House of Commons, are wholly independent and autonomous. We can acknowledge and admit that political and partisan interests play a part in our deliberations. This is a fact, but this does not mean that one or another House is actually subject to manipulation by a Minister. While I do not believe that the Minister of Justice is impeding the Senate's review of Bill C-15B, I recognize that the public may have a different perception based on the press release. Greater care should be taken, in the future, to avoid creating this false perception.
The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Fraser, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley, for the second reading of Bill C-15B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Nolin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Reports of Committees
Consideration of the Sixteenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance (Estimates 2002- 2003— Second Interim Report) presented in the Senate on June 6, 2002.
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., that the Report be adopted.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the Seventeenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance (Estimates 2002- 2003 (Treasury Board Vote 5)—Third Interim Report) presented in the Senate on June 6, 2002.
The Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robertson, that the Report be adopted.
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.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 8 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bolduc, for the second reading of Bill S-36, An Act respecting Canadian citizenship.
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.
Second reading of Bill S-44, An Act to amend the National Capital Act.
The Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, that the Bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, that debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Reports of Committees
Orders No. 1 to 7 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 Keon, for the adoption of the Fourteenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance entitled: The Effectiveness of and Possible Improvements to the Present Equalization Policy, tabled in the Senate on March 21, 2002
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Order No. 9 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Austin, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., for the adoption of the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (amendments to the Rules—official third party recognition), presented in the Senate on March 26, 2002.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Other
Orders No. 53, 52, 49, 16 (inquiries), 103 (motion), 45 (inquiry), were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Maheu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Setlakwe:
That this House:
(a) Calls upon the Government of Canada to recognize the genocide of the Armenians and to condemn any attempt to deny or distort a historical truth as being anything less than genocide, a crime against humanity;
(b) Designates April 24th of every year hereafter throughout Canada as a day of remembrance of the 1.5 million Armenians who fell victim to the first genocide of the twentieth century.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on the following division:
YEAS
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Austin, Bolduc, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen
Cook, Cools, Corbin, Di Nino, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Gauthier, Grafstein, Gustafson, Joyal, Kelleher, Kinsella, Kroft, Léger, Lynch-Staunton, Milne, Moore, Murray, Oliver, Pearson, Phalen, Poulin, Robertson, Robichaud, Roche, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, Stratton—39
NAYS
The Honourable Senators
Baker, Banks, Biron, Day, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Furey, Gil, Hervieux-Payette, Jaffer, Kolber, Lapointe, Maheu, Mahovlich, Morin, Nolin, Pépin, Setlakwe, Stollery, Tunney—20
ABSTENTIONS
The Honourable Senators
Nil
Orders No. 43, 11 (inquiries), 138 (motion), 40 (inquiry) and 73 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Cools, moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Adams:
That a Special Committee of the Senate be appointed to examine the questions of crime and violence in Canada, and their prevention, including the processes of criminal charges, plea agreements, sentencing, imprisonment and parole, with special emphasis on the societal and behavioural causes and origins of crime, and on the current developments, pathologies, patterns and trends of crime, and on the consequences of crime and violence for society, for Canadians, their families, and for peace and justice itself;
That the Special Committee have the power to consult broadly, to examine the relevant research studies, the case law and the literature;
That the Special Committee shall be composed of five senators, 3 of whom shall constitute a quorum;
That the Special Committee have the power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Special Committee have the power to sit during the adjournment of the Senate;
That the Special Committee have the power to retain the services of professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;
That the Special Committee have the power to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
That the Special Committee have the power to authorize television and radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings; and
That the Special Committee shall make its final report no later than two years from the date of the committee's organization meeting.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Baker, P.C., that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Honourable Senator Gustafson, moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton:
That the date of presentation by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry of the final report on its study into international trade in agricultural and agri-food products, and short-term and long-term measures for the health of the agricultural and the agri-food industry in all regions of Canada, which was authorized by the Senate on March 20, 2001, be extended from June 30, 2002 to March 30, 2003.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 28(2):
Lists of various international agreements which entered into force for Canada during 2001 (together with copies of the agreements).—Sessional Paper No. 1/37-813.
Reports of the Department of Finance for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2). —Sessional Paper No. 1/37-814.
Reports of Status of Women Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2). —Sessional Paper No. 1/37-815.
Reports of the Canadian Transportation Agency for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2).—Sessional Paper No. 1/37-816.
Reports of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2). —Sessional Paper No. 1/37-817.
Reports of the Sahtu Land and Water Board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2). —Sessional Paper No. 1/37-818.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 6:00 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 Banking, Trade and Commerce
The name of the Honourable Senator Day substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Cordy (June 6).
The names of the Honourable Senators Fitzpatrick, Hervieux-Payette, Poulin and Setlakwe substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Adams, Day, Robichaud and Rompkey (June 7).
Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
The names of the Honourable Senators Kenny, Banks and Christensen substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Stollery, Gauthier and Phalen (June 7).
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The name of the Honourable Senator Moore substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Sibbeston (June 7).
Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
The names of the Honourable Senators Chalifoux, Fairbairn and Fraser substituted for those of the Honourable Senators LaPierre, Fraser and Fairbairn (June 7).
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The names of the Honourable Senators Comeau and Stratton substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Stratton and Comeau. (June 11).
Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries
The name of the Honourable Senator Baker substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Phalen. (June 11).