Journals of the Senate
52 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2003, Canada
Journals of the Senate
2nd Session, 37th Parliament
Issue 54
Thursday, May 8, 2003
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, Baker, Beaudoin, Biron, Bolduc, Bryden, Carstairs, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Eyton, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Jaffer, Joyal, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, Kolber, Kroft, Lapointe, Lawson, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Mahovlich, Merchant, Milne, Moore, Morin, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Pitfield, Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robertson, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, Rossiter, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, Stratton, Watt, Wiebe
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, Baker, Beaudoin, Biron, Bolduc, Bryden, Carstairs, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Doody, Eyton, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, *Graham, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Jaffer, Joyal, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, *Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lapointe, Lawson, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Mahovlich, Merchant, Milne, Moore, Morin, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Pitfield, Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robertson, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, Rossiter, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, Stratton, Watt, Wiebe
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations
The Honourable Senator Losier-Cool tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, respecting its participation at the meeting of the APF Committee on Education, Communication and Cultural Affairs, held in Châlons-en- Champagne, France, from April 15 to 18, 2003.—Sessional Paper No. 2/37-413.
SPEAKER'S RULING
Yesterday, just before Orders of the Day, I read the message from the House of Commons stating that it had agreed to the Senate's request to divide Bill C-10. The message also stated that the House of Commons waived its claim to insist on its privileges in this case and did not want this action to be taken as a precedent. Senator Lynch-Staunton then rose on a point of order to ask about the status of Bill C-10B that is still before the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. There then followed a series of exchanges involving a number of Senators on this question and other aspects of the message as well.
I wish to thank all Honourable Senators for their contributions on this point of order. The Senate study of Bill C-10 has been a difficult one. There is no doubt that in some ways, the Senate has ventured into uncharted procedural waters and it has been somewhat of a challenge for the Senate to keep its bearings. I have already made a number of rulings on the process that has been followed with respect to the study of Bill C-10 and the instruction made by the Senate last November 20 authorizing the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to divide the bill into two bills. As I have explained to the Senate in my earlier rulings, there are no identical precedents to help guide our procedures. I have also stated, however, that I do not doubt the authority of the Senate to take this course of action and I believe that the Senate has proceeded correctly. Now, I propose to deal with the various questions raised with respect to the point of order. I hope that this will allow the Senate to better understand where things stand as a result of the message received yesterday from the House of Commons.
As I see it, there are two basic questions that need to be answered based on the discussion on the point of order. The first is the one that Senator Lynch-Staunton raised on the status of Bill C-10B. The second question has to do with the language of the message expressing the position of the House of Commons and the fact that it does not regard its consent to the division of the bill to be a precedent. A third question, which I touched on yesterday, related to the matter of a message being debatable or not.
The status of Bill C-10B was the subject of a ruling that I made on December 9. At that time, I provided the Senate with an account of the chronology and the procedures that were followed with respect to Bill C-10. This ruling is in the Journals between pages 368 and 370. As I pointed out on that occasion, Bill C-10 came to the Senate October 10. The Senate agreed to refer the bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in late November. It also agreed to a motion permitting the committee to divide the bill into two bills. The committee did divide the bill and reported one portion as Bill C-10A without amendment. Bill C-10B was retained by the committee for further study. On November 28, the Senate adopted the committee's report. From that day, November 28, quoting from my ruling, ``for all intents and purposes within the Senate, and I must stress this point, from within the Senate, Bill C-10 existed as two bills, Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B.'' Third reading was given to Bill C-10A on December 3. The message sent to the House of Commons spelled out the actions that the Senate had taken and asked for its concurrence. Quoting my ruling again, ``The message indicated that the Senate was returning to the Commons their Bill C-10, as divided by the Senate together with the information that the Senate has passed Bill C-10A without amendment and was continuing with the study of Bill C-10B. Of particular importance, the message requested the concurrence of the House of Commons in the division of Bill C-10. This is highly significant. From the point of view of the House of Commons, only Bill C-10 exists. We, in the Senate, have elected to divide the bill, creating Bills C-10A and C-10B, but as it is a Commons bill, the concurrence of the House of Commons is necessary to fully implement the actions taken by us in the Senate.''
Yesterday's message from the House of Commons announced that the Commons has agreed to the division of Bill C-10. This means that Bill C-10A had been approved by both Houses and is now ready for Royal Assent. It means also that, for the House of Commons, Bill C-10B exists now as well. In reality, this means that the Commons has accepted that the substance and text of this bill were approved by them and sent to the Senate when it was still part of Bill C-10, but it has now agreed post facto to designate it as Bill C-10B. A parchment version of Bill C-10B was attached to the message as confirmation. What the Senate had proposed with respect to the division of Bill C-10, the decision it took to make Bills C-10A and C-10B have been agreed to by the House of Commons. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee can now complete its study and report Bill C-10B. When the bill is reported back, the Senate will have the opportunity to consider the bill further. If Bill C-10B is passed, with or without amendment, a message will be sent to the House of Commons acquainting it of the Senate's decision and soliciting its concurrence if there are any amendments. If and when this process is satisfactorily completed, Bill C-10B will also be ready for Royal Assent.
I take it that the reason why there has been so much confusion is because it has been difficult to appreciate the different perspectives of the two Houses during this process. The House of Commons adopted Bill C-10 last October 9 as one bill. The Senate divided it into two separate bills and returned one to the House of Commons while keeping the second bill in a Senate committee for further study. From the Senate's perspective, there were now two bills. This was not the perspective, however, of the House of Commons and the message that was sent to them by the Senate had to take this difference of perspective into account. The message, therefore, had to inform the Commons that the Senate had studied Bill C-10, divided it into two, and adopted Bill C-10A without amendment. From the Commons' perspective, Bill C-10 was not yet divided; it was still one bill. It was only when the House of Commons agreed to the division first made by the Senate that there was a convergence in perspective. Now, there is no Bill C-10 and Bill C-10A has been adopted by both Houses. It remains for the Senate to complete its work with respect to Bill C-10B already passed by the House of Commons when it was still Bill C-10. This is why the parchment to Bill C-10 was returned to the Senate where it will remain part of the permanent parliamentary record as evidence that the Commons did pass what now constitutes Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B. I trust that this explanation will help to resolve some of the confusion that has troubled some Senators through this admittedly unusual process. After all, it is only the second time in Senate history that it has attempted to divide a Commons bill.
Let me turn now to the second question that was raised as part of this point of order, the language of the second paragraph of the message. Its force apparently offended some Senators. This paragraph declared that the House of Commons was prepared to waive its claims even though it disapproved ``of any infraction of its privileges or rights by the other House.'' Furthermore, the Commons made it clear that it was not prepared to consider this event as a precedent. Several Senators suggested that this message infringed the privileges of the Senate. Others argued that if the Senate accepts this message, it would amount to an admission of wrongdoing on the part of the Senate. The House of Commons, it was argued, can agree or disagree with the Senate's decision to divide Bill C-10, but the Commons does not have the right to disapprove of the Senate's decisions, at least not in this way. Another Senator was more indifferent to the meaning of the message explaining that whether the Commons or the Senate accepts this event as a precedent is really a decision for each Chamber to make.
Honourable Senators, there is little doubt that the language of the message seems stern, almost harsh. It is not, however, without precedent. Identical language was used in a message sent to the Senate March 20, 1997 and printed in the Journals on page 1141. On that occasion, the message concerned amendments proposed by the Senate, and accepted by the Commons, to Bill C-70, a tax bill entitled An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related Acts. And as we are aware from the traditional Royal Assent ceremony involving Supply, the House of Commons is jealous of its authority with respect to money bills. Supply bills are always presented at the Senate bar by the Commons Speaker and are tied in a green coloured ribbon, emblematic of that House rather than the usual red ribbon. Nor is the 1997 message unique though it is infrequent. Whenever the Senate has made amendments to a tax bill that were subsequently accepted by the Commons, the Commons message invariably declares that the Senate should not regard the acquiescence of the Commons as a precedent, as an indication that it is surrendering its proprietary authority over the purse of the Government. It is consistent with the past practice of the House of Commons to send the Senate such messages relating to matters that they feel infringe their rights and powers. I do not think that there is cause for the Senate to have any misgivings. Certainly there is no point of order requiring my intervention.
Finally, as I stated in my ruling of December 4, 2002, messages between the two Houses are a vehicle for formal communication. The content of the message received from the House of Commons will often determine whether the message is debatable or not. In this particular case, there is no subsequent action flowing from the message itself that would require debate. The message advises the Senate that the Commons has passed Bill C-10A. It also includes a standard declaration about claims to privileges that are being set aside in this instance without prejudice to the merits of those claims. There is nothing that I can see in the text that would warrant debate on the message. Despite the harsh language, it is conveyed to the Senate for information purposes only.
In conclusion, Honourable Senators, I rule that there is no point of order based on the arguments that were made yesterday.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees
Resuming debate on the consideration of the Eighth Report (Interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament entitled: Government Ethics Initiative, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on April 10, 2003.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nolin, that further debate on the consideration of the Report 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.
Commons Public Bills
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees
Resuming debate on the consideration of the Third Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (study on matters relating to straddling stocks and to fish habitat) presented in the Senate on March 27, 2003.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., for the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, that further debate on the consideration of the Report be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Order No. 2 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Consideration of the Eighth Report (Interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (Sub-committee on Veterans Affairs) entitled: Fixing the Canadian Forces' Method of Dealing with Death or Dismemberment, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on April 10, 2003.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Day for the Honourable Senator Meighen moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Biron, that further debate on the consideration of the Report be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 4 to 8 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kirby, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, for the adoption of the Third Report (final) of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled: The Health of Canadians — The Federal Role, Volume Six: Recommendations for Reform, tabled in the Senate on October 25, 2002.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cook for the Honourable Senator LeBreton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Order No. 10 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chalifoux, for the adoption of the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (amendment to Rule 131—request for Government response) presented in the Senate on February 4, 2003,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, that subsection (3) of the Committee's recommendations to amend Rule 131 of the Rules of the Senate be further amended by replacing the words ``communicate the request to the Government Leader who'' with the following:
``immediately communicate the request, and send a copy of the report, to the Government Leader and to each Minister of the Crown expressly identified in the report or in the motion as a Minister responsible for responding to the report, and the Government Leader''.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C., that the motion for the adoption of the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament and its motion in amendment be not now adopted, but be referred back to the Standing Committee for further study and report.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin, 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 the motion of the Honourable Senator Kenny, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier- Cool, for the adoption of the Second Report (Interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, entitled: For an Extra 130 Bucks... Update on Canada's Military Financial Crisis, A View from the Bottom Up, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on November 12, 2002.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Other
Orders No. 92 (motion), 15, 17, 22, 11 (inquiries), 91 (motion), 13 (inquiry), 108, 90, 86, 5 (motions), 8, 20 (inquiries), 104 (motion), 9 (inquiry), 4 (motion), 2, 14 (inquiries), 76, 66 (motions), 16 and 6 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Order No. 7 (inquiry) was called and pursuant to Rule 27(3) was dropped from the Order Paper.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., for the Honourable Senator Kolber moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C.:
That the date for the presentation by the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce of the final report on its study on the administration and operation of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, which was authorized by the Senate on October 29, 2002, be extended to Thursday, December 18, 2003.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bolduc, 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 Mahovlich:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 2:00 p.m.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 4:25 p.m. the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 2:00 p.m.)
______________________________________________________________-
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
The names of the Honourable Senators Sibbeston and Fraser substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Banks and Christensen (May 7).
Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
The name of the Honourable Senator Lapointe substituted for that of the Honourable Senator LaPierre (May 7).