Journals of the Senate
52 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2003, Canada
Journals of the Senate
2nd Session, 37th Parliament
Issue 72
Thursday, June 19, 2003
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Beaudoin, Biron, Bolduc, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carney, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Chaput, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, De Bané, Doody, Eyton, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gill, Graham, Gustafson, Hays, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, Kolber, Kroft, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Meighen, Milne, Moore, Morin, Murray, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robertson, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, Rossiter, Setlakwe, Smith, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tkachuk, Watt, Wiebe
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Andreychuk, Atkins, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Beaudoin, Biron, Bolduc, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carney, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Chaput, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, De Bané, Doody, Eyton, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Fraser, Furey, Gill, Graham, Gustafson, Hays, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, *Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, *LaPierre, LeBreton, Léger, Losier-Cool, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Meighen, Milne, Moore, Morin, Murray, Oliver, Pearson, Pépin, Phalen, Poulin (Charette), Poy, Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robertson, Robichaud, Roche, Rompkey, Rossiter, Setlakwe, Smith, Sparrow, Spivak, Stollery, Stratton, Tkachuk, Watt, Wiebe
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Tributes
Tribute was paid to the Honourable Senator Bolduc, who will retire from the Senate on September 10, 2003.
Senators' Statements
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Documents
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Setlakwe tabled the following:
Report of the parliamentary delegation, led by the Speaker of the Senate, which travelled to the Republic of Poland, at the invitation of the President of the Senate, from March 4 to 9, 2003. —Sessional Paper No. 2/37-533S.
Report of the parliamentary delegation, led by the Speaker of the Senate, which travelled to the Russian Federation at the invitation of the Chairman of the Federation Council, from March 9 to 15, 2003.—Sessional Paper No. 2/37- 534S.
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Meighen, Member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, tabled its Fourteenth Report (Final) entitled: Occupational Stress Injuries: The Need for Understanding.—Sessional Paper No. 2/37-535S.
The Honourable Senator Meighen moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, 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.
The Honourable Senator LeBreton, Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, presented its Eleventh Report (Bill S-7, An Act to protect heritage lighthouses) without amendment.
The Honourable Senator Forrestall moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator LeBreton, 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.
The Honourable Senator Furey, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented its Sixth Report (Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Parliament of Canada Act) without amendment.
The Honourable Senator Furey moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, 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.
The Honourable Senator Furey presented the following:
THURSDAY, June 19, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its
SEVENTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Monday, June 16, 2003, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.
Your Committee notes that it instructed the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to make the following clerical corrections in the parchment, in clause 25, of the French version:
(a) on page 31, by replacing line 35 with the following: "405.3(2)b)(i);'';
(b) on page 33,
(i) by replacing line 25 with the following: "(2.1) Par dérogation au sous-alinéa (2)b)(i), si deux'';
(ii) by replacing line 41 with the following: "titre du paragraphe (2.1) à l'association enre-''; and
(c) on page 34,
(i) by replacing line 1 with the following: "(2.3) Par dérogation au sous-alinéa (2)b)(i), si une''; and
(ii) by replacing line 15 with the following: "titre du paragraphe (2.3) au candidat soutenu''.
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE FUREY
Chair
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Furey, that the Bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a third reading later this day.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Honourable Senator Kolber, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, tabled its Twelfth Report (Interim) entitled: Navigating through "The Perfect Storm'': Safeguards to Restore Investor Confidence.—Sessional Paper No. 2/37-536S.
The Honourable Senator Kolber moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, 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.
Notices of Motions
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator LeBreton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forrestall:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be empowered, in accordance with Rule 95(3)(a), to sit on September 16, 17 and 18, 2003, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
SPEAKER'S RULING
Following the proper notice requirements, Senator Murray stood in his place at the conclusion of Orders of the Day last Monday, June 16 to raise a question of privilege. The matter that the Senator brought to the attention of the Senate relates to events that have recently occurred in the other place with respect to an investigation into the conduct of the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. George Radwanski. Senator Murray explained that as a consequence of accusations made against Mr. Radwanski by a committee of the House of Commons and the failure of the government to accept its responsibility and take timely parliamentary action to deal with this matter, Mr. Radwanski, who is an Officer of Parliament, is now in an untenable position.
After detailing the history of this situation, Senator Murray concluded with this declaration: "As far as the dignity of Parliament is concerned and as far as our rights, our reputation and the status of one of our officers are concerned, we cannot allow matters to stand where they are.'' This then is the basis of the question of privilege that Senator Murray has raised. The Senator seems to favour the idea that the government ought to recall the House of Commons to resolve the situation of Mr. Radwanski's status one way or the other. As an alternative, Senator Murray raised the possibility to the Senate inviting the Privacy Commissioner to appear before the Committee of the Whole.
Other Senators spoke to the issue. Senator Carstairs, the Leader of the Government, explained that since the matter involved the House of Commons, it might not be proper for the Senate to interfere. In the course of her intervention, the Senator said "The two Houses work quite independently from one another. What we are doing is using a question of privilege to call into question the proceedings of the other place. ... As a chamber, I do not know exactly what we can do.''
The issue was then broadly canvassed by other Senators who spoke on the question of privilege including Senator Kinsella, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Cools, Senator Fraser and Senator Joyal.
I wish to thank all Honourable Senators who participated in this discussion. It has assisted me in coming to terms with the issues that are relevant in this question of privilege. Let me begin by stating that my role as Speaker is to apply the provisions of rule 43 which list the criteria I must apply in evaluating any claim of a question of privilege. In carrying out this responsibility, I am not assessing the merits of the case itself. It is not for me to pronounce on the circumstances in which Mr. Radwanski now finds himself or how he arrived at this position. My task is to determine whether this question merits consideration as a question of privilege, giving it a priority status that would then be resolved through a decision of the Senate. My ruling only concerns whether or not, on a prima facie basis, the issue that has been raised by Senator Murray deserves to be treated as a question of privilege.
Rule 43(1) lists four criteria that I need to evaluate with respect to this case. The first has to do with timing; was the matter raised at the earliest opportunity. Given that Senator Murray brought up this subject as a result of the summer adjournment of the House of Commons that occurred last Friday, I am satisfied that the question has been raised at the earliest opportunity.
I am less certain about the applicability of the remaining three criteria. It must, for example, "be a matter directly concerning the privileges of the Senate, of any committee thereof, or any Senator.'' Senator Murray, as well as several other Senators, pointed out that Mr. Radwanski, as the Privacy Commissioner, is a Parliamentary Officer. This is certainly true, but the actions complained of were taken by a committee of the House of Commons. As a Senate and as Senators, we might dispute what has occurred in the other place, but as Senator Carstairs pointed out, both Houses are fully independent and autonomous. Each are entitled to the protection of privilege and each have the right to conduct their proceedings as they see fit. I do not see how the Senate can invoke privilege in this case to challenge what was done in the other place.
As to whether the question of privilege is "raised to seek a genuine remedy, which is in the Senate's power to provide, and for which no other parliamentary process is reasonably available'', the third criterion stipulated in rule 43(1), again I see a problem. In so far as the preferred remedy raised by Senator Murray is that the government should request the Speaker to recall the House of Commons so that the status of Mr. Radwanski as the Privacy Commissioner could be resolved, this is not a solution that is within the power of the Senate to provide. Any recall that the government might undertake would be made pursuant to its prerogative as the Executive. The Senate has no role in this kind of decision. As an alternative, Senator Murray suggested that the Senate could invite Mr. Radwanski to appear in Committee of the Whole. This is certainly within the Senate's authority, but it is also a "parliamentary process that is reasonably available.'' As an option, it does not require a ruling by me on a question of privilege. I believe that it would be more appropriate for the Senate itself to consider this course of action by way of the necessary motion moved in accordance with our usual practices. In this regard, I share the view expressed by Senator Cools, though perhaps for different reasons, that this is a decision for the Senate that should not be prompted by a ruling from the Chair.
Finally, with respect to the fourth criterion, that the alleged question of privilege must "be raised to correct a grave and serious breech'', I am obliged to state that while the matter appears to be a serious one, I do not think that it is one of parliamentary privilege. It may be that the action or, more accurately, inaction of the House of Commons raises some serious issues about natural justice, as some Senators mentioned in their comments, but this does not make it a question of privilege that falls within the responsibility of the Senate.
If the Senate wishes to consider the issues involved in the circumstances surrounding the current status of the Privacy Commissioner, there are means readily available. As I have already noted, Senator Murray has mentioned one of them and there are others. For this and the other reasons that I have explained, it is my decision that there is no prima facie question of privilege in this case that can be addressed using rule 43.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Order No. 2 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Second reading of Bill C-42, An Act respecting the protection of the Antarctic Environment.
The Honourable Senator Christensen moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Léger, that the Bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Spivak moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cochrane, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Motions
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C.:
That, pursuant to Rule 95(3), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to meet during the period September 1 to 16, 2003, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding a week.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on division.
Reports of Committees
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Chalifoux, seconded by the Honourable Senator Adams, for the adoption of the Fourth Report (Revised) of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (Bill C-6, An Act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other Acts, with amendments) presented in the Senate on June 12, 2003.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., that the Bill, as amended, be placed on the Orders of the Day for a third reading later this day.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Furey, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, for the adoption of the Fifth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (motion and Message concerning Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)) presented in the Senate on June 12, 2003.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on division.
Ordered: That the Clerk do carry this Bill, as amended, back to the House of Commons and acquaint that House that (a) the Senate do insist on its amendment numbered 2; (b) in lieu of amendment numbered 3, with which the House of Commons has disagreed, the Senate has adopted an amendment and requests that it be concurred in by the House of Commons; (c) with respect to the amendment numbered 4, the Senate has accepted in part the wording proposed by the House of Commons, but has adopted an amendment and requests that it be concurred in by the House of Commons.
Order No. 3 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Bills
Third reading of Bill C-6, An Act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other Acts, as amended.
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., that the Bill, as amended, be read the third time.
After debate,
In amendment, the Honourable Senator Watt moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gill, that the Bill, as amended, be not now read a third time but that it be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
A point of order was raised as to the acceptability of the motion in amendment.
Debate.
SPEAKER'S RULING
If no other honourable senator wishes to speak on this point of procedure about the appropriateness of Senator Watt's motion, I think the motion is in order. I will explain why.
I wish to draw to the attention of honourable senators paragraph 737 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, which states:
A bill may be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole or to a committee by a Member moving an amendment to the third reading motion.
That is what Senator Watt is doing. He is moving an amendment to the motion for third reading. He says, no, send it back to committee. I believe that is in order.
The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-6, as amended,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Watt, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gill, that the Bill, as amended, be not now read a third time but that it be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Chalifoux moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finnerty, that further debate on the motion in amendment be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Watt tabled the following:
Copy of a brief from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, together with proposed amendments to Bill C-6. —Sessional Paper No. 2/37-537S.
Third reading of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).
A point of order was raised with respect to the Seventh Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill C-24) presented earlier this day.
Debate.
DEFERRED VOTE
At 5:30 p.m., and pursuant to Rule 66(3), the Senate proceeded to the taking of the deferred standing vote on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Nolin to the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003.
The question was put on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Nolin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., that the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be amended in clause 64, on page 55,
(a) by deleting lines 11 to 39; and
(b) by renumbering clauses 65 to 130 as clauses 64 to 129, and any cross-references thereto accordingly.
The motion in amendment was negatived on the following vote:
YEAS
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Atkins, Beaudoin, Bolduc, Buchanan, Cochrane, Comeau, Doody, Eyton, Forrestall, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Meighen, Moore, Murray, Oliver, Prud'homme, Rivest, Robertson, Roche, Rossiter, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk—27
NAYS
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Biron, Bryden, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Chaput, Christensen, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Cordy, De Bané, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Fraser, Furey, Gill, Graham, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kolber, Kroft, Léger, Losier-Cool, Mahovlich, Milne, Morin, Pearson, Phalen, Poulin, Poy, Ringuette, Robichaud, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Smith, Stollery, Watt, Wiebe—46
ABSTENTIONS
The Honourable Senators
Sparrow—1
The question then being put on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003, 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.
Bills
The Senate resumed debate on the point of order with respect to the Seventh Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill C-24) presented earlier this day.
After debate,
The Speaker reserved his decision.
_______________________________________________________________
Ordered, That the Order for the third reading of Bill C-39, set down on the Orders of the Day for the next sitting, be brought forward.
Third reading of Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Parliament of Canada Act.
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, that the Bill be read the third time.
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.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bolduc, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cochrane, for the second reading of Bill S-17, An Act respecting the Canadian International Development Agency, to provide in particular for its continuation, governance, administration and accountability.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Bolduc moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, that the Bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 3 to 6 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Commons Public Bills
Third reading of Bill C-411, An Act to establish Merchant Navy Veterans Day.
The Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, that the Bill be read the third time.
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.
Second reading of Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for regulations).
The Honourable Senator Moore moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, that the Bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Bill was then read the second time.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Moore moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, that the Bill be read the third time now.
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.
_______________________________________________________________
Ordered, That Order No. 6 under Senate Public Bills be again called.
Second reading of Bill S-20, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.
The Honourable Senator Setlakwe for the Honourable Senator Day moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gill, that the Bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., for the Honourable Senator Day 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.
Commons Public Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kirby, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, for the second reading of Bill C-249, An Act to amend the Competition Act.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., for the Honourable Senator Kirby 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.
Reports of Committees
Orders No. 1 to 4 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Consideration of the Fourth Report (Interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs entitled: Uncertain Access: The Consequences of U.S. Security and Trade Actions for Canadian Trade Policy (Volume 1), tabled in the Senate on June 13, 2003.
The Honourable Senator Stollery moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy, that the Report be adopted.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Kinsella for the Honourable Senator Di Nino 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.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The point of order was raised by Senator Kinsella. I thank Senator Kinsella and all those who intervened for their interventions and comments. I am now prepared to rule.
I would observe that, when honourable senators gave me an opportunity to consider my ruling, we had before us Bill C-24 at third reading stage.
I start by reciting rule 97(4) which provides:
When a committee reports a bill without amendment, such report shall stand adopted without any motion, and the Senator in charge of the bill shall move that it be read a third time on a future day.
In the case of the Seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, leave was given to consider the report later this day. Before putting the motion, Senator Kinsella rose on his point of order.
I refer to the rule to point out that I believe the bill is properly before us in terms of compliance with our rules. The committee reported the bill without amendment, a very important fact which I bring to your attention.
The point of order, as I understand it, concerns the requested changes referred to in the observations made by the committee in the context of asking the law clerk to deal with those changes as clerical errors. The request was that those changes should be dealt with as amendments in the absence of the unanimous consent of the committee to adopt that part of the report.
I remind honourable senators that this form of instruction in a committee report is consistent with past practice in the Senate. I do not want to go into a lot of detail, but I refer honourable senators to the Debates of the Senate of June 28, 1988, at page 3751 and 3752. The Senate received a report with an observation which stated:
Having found, however, that there were certain incorrect cross-references in the Bill as passed by the House of Commons, the Committee has asked that these editorial errors be corrected in the parchment of the Bill by officials of both Houses prior to its third reading in the Senate.
Another example would be from the Debates of the Senate of December 6, 2001, at page 1885, concerns the thirteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, then chaired by Senator Milne. The observation stated:
Your Committee notes that it instructed the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to correct a printing error in the parchment. On page 12...
I would also refer honourable senators to the exchange recorded in the Debates of the Senate of May 18, 1988, at pages 3436 to 3437, and on May 19, 1988, at 3448 to 3450. I will quote in part from that section, from an intervention by Senator Frith where a request was made for an opinion from parliamentary counsel. A memorandum to the Clerk of the Senate, then Mr. Lussier, from Mr. du Plessis, was read into the record. It stated, in part:
No guidelines have been established for deciding which errors are the proper subject-matter of clerical correction and which require parliamentary amendment. A good guide for clerical correction is to work by analogy to errors that the courts would feel comfortable in characterizing as "an obvious typographical error or slip of the draftsman's pen.'' Dreidger, Construction of Statutes.
That brings me to the heart of what I will be ruling on: That is, the concern highlighted by the point of order that something like that could only be done with unanimous consent. I quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition. Paragraph 728 at page 223 is not necessarily right on point, although it is partly on point and it covers the matters before us.
When a variance occurs in either the English or French texts of a bill, it may be treated, with unanimous consent, as an editorial change.
The words "editorial'' and "clerical'' have been used interchangeably in many of the references I have seen.
I emphasize the word "may'' in that paragraph from Beauchesne. Certainly unanimous consent is one way to proceed but not the only way. The committee proceeded in accordance with Senate practices; that is, by majority vote. I believe that the committee acted correctly, that the report is properly before us and that we should not go behind the integrity of the committee.
The only time that we require unanimous consent is when we suspend a written rule or when we depart from an established practice. In those cases, unanimous consent is required. That is not the situation before us.
Accordingly, honourable senators, I do not feel that there is a point of order. The observations of the committee, which contain instructions, are in order. It is in order for us to proceed to deal with the bill at third reading.
Third reading of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., that the Bill be read the third time.
After debate,
In amendment, the Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be amended
1) in clause 25, in the French version,
(a) on page 31, by replacing line 35 with the following:
"405.3(2)b)(i);'';
(b) on page 33,
(i) by replacing line 25 with the following:
"(2.1) Par dérogation au sous-alinéa (2)b)(i), si deux'', and
(ii) by replacing line 41 with the following:
"titre du paragraphe (2.1) à l'association enre-''; and
(c) on page 34,
(i) by replacing line 1 with the following:
"(2.3) Par dérogation au sous-alinéa (2)b)(i), si une'', and
(ii) by replacing line 15 with the following:
"titre du paragraphe (2.3) au candidat soutenu''.
2) in clause 73, in the English version, on page 104, by replacing line 25, with the following:
"the 2004 taxation year but before the day on''.
The question being put on the motion in amendment, it was negatived on division.
The question then being put on the motion of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-24, it was adopted on division.
The Bill was then read the third time and passed, on division.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House that the Senate have passed this Bill, without amendment.
Reports of Committees
Orders No. 6 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 LeBreton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rossiter, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 10 and 11 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton calling the attention of the Senate to the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons on February 18, 2003.
Debate concluded.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton:
That this House calls upon the Government of Canada:
(a) to recognize the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide of 1932-33 and to condemn any attempt to deny or distort this historical truth as being anything less than a genocide;
(b) to designate the fourth Saturday in November of every year throughout Canada as a day of remembrance of the more than seven million Ukrainians who fell victim to the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide 1932-33; and
(c) to call on all Canadians, particularly historians, educators and parliamentarians, to include the true facts of the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide of 1932-33 in the records of Canada and in future educational material.
GIVEN THAT the Genocide of Ukrainians (now commonly referred to as the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide of 1932-33 and referred to as such in this Motion) engineered and executed by the Soviet regime under Stalin to destroy all opposition to its imperialist policies, caused the deaths of over seven million Ukrainians in 1932 and 1933;
THAT on November 26, 1998, the President of Ukraine issued a Presidential Decree establishing that the fourth Saturday in November be a National Day of Remembrance for the victims of this mass atrocity;
THAT the fourth Saturday in November has been recognized by Ukrainian communities throughout the world as a day to remember the victims of the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide of 1932-33 and to promote the fundamental freedoms of a democratic society;
THAT it is recognized that information about the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide of 1932-33 was suppressed, distorted, or wiped out by Soviet authorities;
THAT it is only now that some proper and accurate information is emerging from the former Soviet Union about the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide of 1932-33;
THAT many survivors of the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide of 1932-33 have immigrated to Canada and contributed to its positive development;
THAT Canada condemns all war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides;
AND THAT Canadians cherish and defend human rights, and value the diversity and multicultural nature of Canadian society.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 137, 104, 86 (motions), 9 (inquiry), 130 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kirby, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the infrastructure and governance of the public health system in Canada, as well as on Canada's ability to respond to public health emergencies arising from outbreaks of infectious disease. In particular, the Committee shall be authorized to examine and report on:
- the state and governance of the public health infrastructure in Canada;
- the roles and responsibilities of, and the coordination among, the various levels of government responsible for public health;
- the monitoring, surveillance and scientific testing capacity of existing agencies;
- the globalization of public health;
- the adequacy of funding and resources for public health infrastructure in Canada;
- the performance of public health infrastructure in selected countries;
- the feasibility of establishing a national public health legislation or agency as a means for better coordination and integration and improved emergency responsiveness;
- the Naylor Advisory Group Report and recommendations.
That the Committee submit its report no later than March 31, 2004.
After debate,
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 Kirby:
That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to establish September 11 of this and every year hereafter as a commemorative day throughout Canada, to be known as "America Day in Canada.''
After debate,
In amendment, the Honourable Senator Corbin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That'' and substituting the following therefor:
"the question of the Senate urging the Government of Canada to establish commemorative days throughout Canada, including the proposal for establishing "America Day in Canada'', be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs; and
That the Committee report no later than December 15, 2003.''
After debate,
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.
Ordered, That Order No. 137 (motion) be again called.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Banks, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be empowered, in accordance with Rule 95(3)(a), to sit during the traditional summer adjournment of 2003, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week, until such time as the Senate is ordered to return.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Bacon moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, 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 14 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion, as modified, of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:
That the following resolution, encapsulating the 2002 Berlin OSCE (PA) Resolution, be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for consideration and report before June 30, 2003:
WHEREAS Canada is a founding member State of the Organization for Security and Economic Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the 1975 Helsinki Accords;
WHEREAS all the participating member States to the Helsinki Accords affirmed respect for the right of persons belonging to national minorities to equality before the law and the full opportunity for the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms and further that the participating member States recognized that such respect was an essential factor for the peace, justice and well-being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation between themselves and among all member States;
WHEREAS the OSCE condemned anti-Semitism in the 1990 Copenhagen Concluding Document and undertook to take effective measures to protect individuals from anti-Semitic violence;
WHEREAS the 1996 Lisbon Concluding Document of the OSCE called for improved implementation of all commitments in the human dimension, in particular with respect to human rights and fundamental freedoms and urged participating member States to address the acute problem of anti-Semitism;
WHEREAS the 1999 Charter for European Security committed Canada and other participating members States to counter violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and manifestations of intolerance, aggressive nationalism, racism, chauvinism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism;
WHEREAS on July 8, 2002, at its Parliamentary Assembly held at the Reichstag in Berlin, Germany, the OSCE passed a unanimous resolution, as appended, condemning the current anti-Semitic violence throughout the OSCE space;
WHEREAS the 2002 Berlin Resolution urged all member States to make public statements recognizing violence against Jews and Jewish cultural properties as anti-Semitic and to issue strong, public declarations condemning the depredations;
WHEREAS the 2002 Berlin Resolution called on all participating member States to combat anti-Semitism by ensuring aggressive law enforcement by local and national authorities;
WHEREAS the 2002 Berlin Resolution urged participating members States to bolster the importance of combating anti-Semitism by exploring effective measures to prevent anti-Semitism and by ensuring that laws, regulations, practices and policies conform with relevant OSCE commitments on anti-Semitism;
WHEREAS the 2002 Berlin Resolution also encouraged all delegates to the Parliamentary Assembly to vocally and unconditionally condemn manifestations of anti-Semitic violence in their respective countries;
WHEREAS the alarming rise in anti-Semitic incidents and violence has been documented in Canada, as well as Europe and worldwide.
Appendix
RESOLUTION ON ANTI-SEMITIC VIOLENCE
IN THE OSCE REGION
Berlin, 6 - 10 July 2002
1. Recalling that the OSCE was among those organizations which publicly achieved international condemnation of anti-Semitism through the crafting of the 1990 Copenhagen Concluding Document;
2. Noting that all participating States, as stated in the Copenhagen Concluding Document, commit to "unequivocally condemn'' anti-Semitism and take effective measures to protect individuals from anti-Semitic violence;
3. Remembering the 1996 Lisbon Concluding Document, which highlights the OSCE's "comprehensive approach'' to security, calls for "improvement in the implementation of all commitments in the human dimension, in particular with respect to human rights and fundamental freedoms'', and urges participating States to address "acute problems'', such as anti-Semitism;
4. Reaffirming the 1999 Charter for European Security, committing participating States to "counter such threats to security as violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and manifestations of intolerance, aggressive nationalism, racism, chauvinism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism'';
5. Recognizing that the scourge of anti-Semitism is not unique to any one country, and calls for steadfast perseverance by all participating States;
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:
6. Unequivocally condemns the alarming escalation of anti-Semitic violence throughout the OSCE region;
7. Voices deep concern over the recent escalation in anti-Semitic violence, as individuals of the Judaic faith and Jewish cultural properties have suffered attacks in many OSCE participating States;
8. Urges those States which undertake to return confiscated properties to rightful owners, or to provide alternative compensation to such owners, to ensure that their property restitution and compensation programmes are implemented in a non-discriminatory manner and according to the rule of law;
9. Recognizes the commendable efforts of many post-communist States to redress injustices inflicted by previous regimes based on religious heritage, considering that the interests of justice dictate that more work remains to be done in this regard, particularly with regard to individual and community property restitution compensation;
10. Recognizes the danger of anti-Semitic violence to European security, especially in light of the trend of increasing violence and attacks regions wide;
11. Declares that violence against Jews and other manifestations of intolerance will never be justified by international developments or political issues, and that it obstructs democracy, pluralism, and peace;
12. Urges all States to make public statements recognizing violence against Jews and Jewish cultural properties as anti-Semitic, as well as to issue strong, public declarations condemning the depredations;
13. Calls upon participating States to ensure aggressive law enforcement by local and national authorities, including thorough investigation of anti-Semitic criminal acts, apprehension of perpetrators, initiation of appropriate criminal prosecutions and judicial proceedings;
14. Urges participating States to bolster the importance of combating anti-Semitism by holding a follow-up seminar or human dimension meeting that explores effective measures to prevent anti-Semitism, and to ensure that their laws, regulations, practices and policies conform with relevant OSCE commitments on anti- Semitism; and
15. Encourages all delegates to the Parliamentary Assembly to vocally and unconditionally condemn manifestations of anti-Semitic violence in their respective countries and at all regional and international forums.
After debate,
Ordered, That the words "June 30, 2003'' be deleted and the words "December 31, 2003'' substituted therefor.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., for the Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Graham, P.C., that further debate on the motion, as modified, be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 121, 122 (motions), 16 (inquiry), 115 (motion), 6, 11, 15, 21 (inquiries), 92 (motion) and 22 (inquiry) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
INQUIRIES
The Honourable Senator Moore called the attention of the Senate to the matter of research funding in Canadian universities from federal sources.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Morin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
WRITTEN DECLARATION OF ROYAL ASSENT
The Honourable the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:
RIDEAU HALL
June 19, 2003
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 of the Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 19th day of June, 2003, at 8:39 p.m.
Yours sincerely,
Barbara Uteck
Secretary to the Governor General
The Honourable
The Speaker of the Senate
Ottawa
Schedule
Bills Assented To
Thursday, June 19, 2003
An Act respecting a National Acadian Day (Bill S-5, Chapter 11, 2003)
An Act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (Bill C-31, Chapter 12, 2003)
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2004 (Bill C-47, Chapter 13, 2003)
An Act to compensate military members injured during service (Bill C-44, Chapter 14, 2003)
An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003 (Bill C-28, Chapter 15, 2003)
An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (Bill C-39, Chapter 16, 2003)
An Act to establish Merchant Navy Veterans Day (Bill C-411, Chapter 17, 2003)
An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for regulations) (Bill C-205, Chapter 18, 2003)
An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing) (Bill C-24, Chapter 19, 2003)
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Fraser moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Morin:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered, in accordance with Rule 95(3)(a), to sit during the traditional summer adjournment of 2003, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week, until such time as the Senate is ordered to return.
With leave of the Senate and pursuant to Rule 30, the motion was modified to read as follows:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered, in accordance with Rule 95(3)(a), to sit as of September 2, 2003, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week, until such time as the Senate is ordered to return.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Kinsella moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, that further debate on the motion, as modified, be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., for the Honourable Senator Milne moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.:
That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be empowered, in accordance with Rule 95(3)(a), to sit during the summer adjournment of 2003, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week, until such time as the Senate is ordered to return, and that, notwithstanding the usual practices of the Senate, the Committee be empowered to conduct its meetings by teleconference.
After debate,
With leave of the Senate and pursuant to Rule 30, the motion was modified to read as follows:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be empowered, in accordance with Rule 95(3)(a), to sit during the week of July 28 to August 1, and the week of August 5 to 8, 2003, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week.
The question being put on the motion, as modified, 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 Rompkey, P.C.:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, September 16, 2003, 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):
Summaries of the Corporate Plan for 2003-2004 to 2007-2008 and of the Capital and Operating Budgets for 2003- 2004 of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4).—Sessional Paper No. 2/37-528.
Report of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, pursuant to the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, S.C. 1989, c. 3, sbs. 13(3).—Sessional Paper No. 2/37-529.
Reports of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, 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. 2/37- 530.
Reports of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, 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. 2/37-531.
Corporate Business Plan for 2003-2008 of the Canadian food Inspection Agency, pursuant to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, S.C. 1997, c. 6, s. 22.—Sessional Paper No. 2/37-532.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C.:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 9:39 p.m. the Senate was continued until Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 2:00 p.m.)
_______________________________________________________________
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The names of the Honourable Senators Baker, Hubley and Finnerty substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Hubley, Cools and Pearson (June 18).
The names of the Honourable Senators Cools and Pearson substituted for those of the Honourable Senators Hubley and Finnerty (June 19).
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The name of the Honourable Senator Callbeck substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Mahovlich (June 18).
Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs
The name of the Honourable Senator Spivak substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk (June 18).
The name of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Spivak (June 19).