Journals of the Senate
54 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2005, Canada
Journals of the Senate
1st Session, 38th Parliament
Issue 90
Thursday, October 20, 2005
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Angus, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Biron, Bryden, Buchanan, Campbell, Champagne, Chaput, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Day, Eggleton, Eyton, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Furey, Gill, Goldstein, Grafstein, Gustafson, Hays, Hubley, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Keon, Kirby, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lovelace Nicholas, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Merchant, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Murray, Pépin, Peterson, Phalen, Pitfield, Plamondon, Poulin (Charette), Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, Segal, Smith, Spivak, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Trenholme Counsell, Watt, Zimmer
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, *Andreychuk, Angus, Austin, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Biron, Bryden, Buchanan, *Callbeck, Campbell, *Carstairs, Champagne, Chaput, Christensen, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, *Corbin, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Day, *De Bané, *Di Nino, *Downe, Eggleton, Eyton, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Furey, Gill, Goldstein, Grafstein, Gustafson, Hays, Hubley, *Jaffer, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Keon, *Kinsella, Kirby, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lovelace Nicholas, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Merchant, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Murray, *Nolin, *Oliver, *Pearson, Pépin, Peterson, Phalen, Pitfield, Plamondon, Poulin (Charette), Prud'homme, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, Segal, Smith, Spivak, *Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Trenholme Counsell, Watt, Zimmer
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some honourable senators made statements.
SPEAKER'S RULING
Tuesday, October 18, 2005 Senator LeBreton raised a question of privilege claiming that her rights as a Senator had been infringed by certain activities that she attributed to the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. Senator LeBreton contends that the Committee met Monday and Tuesday morning without issuing a notice as required by rule 92(1). In addition, the Senator explained that these committee meetings were conducted without simultaneous interpretation and outside the assigned time-slot allocated to the committee. In consequence, the Senator argued that she had been deprived of her rights under rule 91 to attend and participate in those meetings, even though she is not a member of this committee.
By way of response, Senator Kenny, who is the Chair of the National Security and Defence Committee, explained that the meetings beginning Monday and Tuesday morning were not in fact committee meetings. Instead, they were private meetings involving a senator and a group of individuals assisting him and some members of the Library of Parliament in preparing research. Even though members of the Committee were advised of these meetings, this was done only as a matter of courtesy and in an effort to be transparent. In the end, as Senator Kenny recounted, only one Senator took him up on his offer and then for just a brief time. Had the meetings been official, like the meeting held Monday afternoon, Senator Kenny insisted that all the rules for notice, interpretation and transcription would have been followed.
Several Senators then intervened. Senator Tkachuk supported the views expressed by Senator LeBreton. Senator Banks, on the other hand, admitted to holding similar preparatory meetings for his committee. In his comment Senator Meighen warned against the proliferation of semi-official or unofficial meetings. There is a risk, as he indicated, that many will come to believe that the real purpose of these meetings is to do indirectly what cannot be done directly. Following a brief comment from Senator Plamondon, Senator Forrestall and Senator Cools also expressed their views regarding the merits of the question of privilege. For his part, Senator Forrestall generally supported the efforts of the National Security and Defence Committee to prepare solid reports addressing complex topics. At the same time, Senator Forrestall suggested that there might be a need to look at the process to avoid any misunderstandings. Taking up the same theme, Senator Cools proposed that it might be a better approach to consider this problem not as a question of privilege but as an issue that requires study and review through a different avenue.
I want to thank all honourable Senators who contributed through their exchanges to this question of privilege. The views that were expressed to the Speaker pro tempore have assisted me in understanding the nature of the alleged question of privilege which I must now address in order to determine if prima facie it warrants further consideration by the Senate itself.
This issue is in fact complex and several points need to be carefully considered. As Speaker, however, my primary obligation in considering this complaint is to assess it in terms of the criteria provided in rule 43 that must be met to establish its merits prima facie as a question of privilege. The threshold established by these criteria is fairly high as it must be for any question of privilege.
According to the rule, four criteria need to be met. The alleged breach must be raised at the earliest opportunity. It must deal directly with a privilege of the Senate, its senators or its committees. The grievance to be remedied must constitute a grave and serious breach of privilege. And finally, the issue must be raised in order to seek a genuine remedy for which no other parliamentary process is reasonably available.
With respect to the first two criteria, there is no real difficulty. I am satisfied that the complaint of Senator Le Breton was raised at the earliest opportunity and that it involves an issue that touches the privileges and rights of the Senate and its members. It remains, now, to analyze more closely the two other criteria.
The rule states that a point of a privilege must ``be raised to correct a grave and serious breach.'' As Speaker, it is incumbent upon me to make a ruling within the context of the normal operations of the Senate with respect to this point. As was mentioned during the exchanges that took place on the question of privilege, the Senate uses its committees to conduct much of its business to examine bills and inquire into different governmental policies. An adjunct to this work involves the use of subcommittees and, as well, informal private meetings with individuals or groups. Both are common and necessary practices that enable senators to more effectively carry out their responsibilities.
At the same time, there is a need to maintain a certain balance especially with respect to the use of private meetings whose objectives are designed to serve the broader interests of the committee. A fundamental purpose of the rules and practices followed in the Senate is to provide for openness and accessibility. For this reason, the rules require that public notice be given, interpretation services provided, and proper records of decisions kept. It is also why rule 91 allows Senators who are not members of the committee to attend and participate. It should be noted that subcommittees can and do meet while the Senate is sitting and without public notice. However, in their actions and decisions, subcommittees are directly accountable to their main committee which operates in full public view. This is not the case with respect to so-called private meetings.
What needs to be asked is whether the use of private meeting can cross the line and become in substance, if not in reality, a meeting of a committee or subcommittee in disguise. If committee meetings are held under the guise of private meeting, there is a serious possibility that the Senate could lose control of its ability to manage its affairs effectively. A proliferation of informal and unofficial private meetings could easily conflict with other committee work or even with the sittings of this Chamber itself. The substantial risk of diminished participation by senators could also seriously compromise the Senate's ability to conduct its affairs properly and thoroughly. Seen in this perspective, the abusive use of private meetings could constitute a grave and serious breach under the terms of rule 43(1)(d) and lead to a finding of a prima facie breach of privilege.
The final criterion to consider is whether or not there are other parliamentary processes available to deal with this potential breach. This question of privilege has at its core the activity of committees. Traditionally, committees are regarded as the master of their own proceedings. While this does not mean they operate above the Rules, their less formal nature often creates certain grey areas of practice that our rules do not conclusively govern. An example of a grey area may very well be the situation we are considering today.
As Speaker, I am reluctant to become involved in regulating the affairs of committees. It seems to me that there are other more appropriate mechanisms available to do this. With respect to the issue raised in Senator LeBreton's question of privilege, committees themselves could consider how they might standardize the role of subcommittees in performing the kind of important preparatory work guiding their research efforts. This would likely reduce the need for the sort of private meetings complained of in this question of privilege. It might also be useful for the Rules Committee to look into the matter if it thinks that certain practices need to be more formally regulated. This can be done by the Committee on its own authority or it can be done by way of an order of reference adopted by the Senate. There may be other means involving the political leadership of the Senate to address this issue. Given that these different options are reasonably available within the meaning of paragraph 43(1)(c), I am unable to find that a prima facie case of privilege has been properly established in this case.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Massicotte, for the third reading of Bill S-40, An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the third time and passed.
Ordered, That the Clerk do go down to the House of Commons and acquaint that House that the Senate has passed this bill, to which it desires its concurrence.
Order No. 2 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Second reading of Bill C-25, An Act governing the operation of remote sensing space systems.
The Honourable Senator Peterson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Zimmer, that the bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator LeBreton for the Honourable Senator Di Nino moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Keon, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Order No. 4 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 14 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
Orders No. 1 to 3 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Order No. 4 (13th report of National Security and Defence Committee) was called and pursuant to rule 27(3) was dropped from the Order Paper.
Order No. 5 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Orders No. 91 (motion), 23, 4 and 27 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Grafstein:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology study the following and report to the Senate within three months after the adoption of this motion:
1. The designation by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada of the Montreal residence of Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine, Prime Minister of United Canada from 1841-42 and 1848-51, located on Overdale Street as a National Historic Monument to be purchased and managed by Parks Canada;
2. The creation of an Interpretation Centre at this Lafontaine residence for the purpose of promoting knowledge about the development of Responsible Government in Canada including the part played by Robert Baldwin, co- Prime Minister and Attorney General of Upper Canada, Joseph Howe from Nova Scotia, Charles Fisher from New Brunswick, and Lord Elgin, then Governor General of United Canada;
3. The role of Parks Canada in establishing a network of historic sites across the country to promote an understanding of our parliamentary democracy and the contributions made to this end by various Prime Ministers throughout our history.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator LeBreton for the Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Segal, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 127 (motion), 24 (inquiry), 120 (motion), 18 (inquiry), 113 (motion), 6, 2, 25, 17 and 26 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Order No. 11 (inquiry) was called and pursuant to rule 27(3) was dropped from the Order Paper.
Orders No. 21, 22 (inquiries), 78 (motion), 14, 20 (inquiries) and 69 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Tardif moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Massicotte:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages study and report its recommendations to the Senate on the following no later than June 15, 2006:
1. The relocation of federal department head offices from bilingual to unilingual regions and its effect on the employees' ability to work in the official language of their choice;
2. The measures that can be taken to prevent such relocations from adversely affecting the application of Part V of the Official Languages Act in these offices, and the relocated employees' ability to work in the official language of their choice.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Segal moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Keon, 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 Kirby moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin:
That, notwithstanding the Order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, October 7, 2004, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which was authorized to examine and report on issues arising from, and development since, the tabling of its final report on the state of the health care system in Canada in October 2002 (mental health and mental illness), be empowered to present its final report no later than June 30, 2006, and that the Committee retain all powers necessary to publicize the findings of the Committee contained in the final report until October 31, 2006; and
That the Committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit any report with the Clerk of the Senate, if the Senate is not then sitting; and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Chamber.
After debate,
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 Rompkey, P.C. moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 25, 2005, at 2 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):
Reports of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005, 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. 1/38-814.
Report of the Copyright Board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005, pursuant to the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 10 , s. 12.—Sessional Paper No. 1/38-815.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 3:48 p.m. the Senate was continued until Tuesday, October 25, 2005, at 2 p.m.)