The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before we proceed, I would ask senators to rise and observe one minute of silence in tribute to Corporal Nicolas Raymond Beauchamp and Private Michel Jr. Levesque, who were killed last weekend while serving their country in Afghanistan.

Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.

(1405)

[English]

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
H.R.H. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Sixtieth Wedding Anniversary

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): Honourable senators, it is an honour and a pleasure to rise today to recognize a memorable day — the diamond wedding anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

On November 20, 1947, the then Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark were joined together in marriage. The radio broadcast of the ceremony was played across the country, and I well remember my family listening with much pride.

During their first visit to Canada as a married couple in the fall of 1951, they developed a very close relationship with this country. We all remember that famous news photo of the Princess square dancing at Rideau Hall. Speaking of that visit, Her Majesty said:

From the moment when I first set foot on Canadian soil, the feeling of strangeness went, for I knew myself to be not only amongst friends, but amongst fellow countrymen.

The past 60 years have proven this sentiment to be true. Some honourable senators will recall that within three months of leaving Canada, Princess Elizabeth became Queen of Canada on February 6, 1952. Who can forget that beautiful June day in 1953 when her coronation was broadcast by radio and the ceremony became the first to be covered by television?

That was the first time in my life that I had ever watched television, which was set up in our local school. I must say, we put pressure on my father to get us a television set after that.

Five years later, on her first official visit to Canada as our Queen, Her Majesty became the first reigning Canadian monarch to open Parliament — the First Session of the Twenty-third Parliament — an event that transpired in this very chamber.

The Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker was the new Prime Minister, and he spoke often of that memorable day in his life and the life of our country. I remember him very well telling me many times about that wonderful day.

This week, Prime Minister Harper, along with other Commonwealth prime ministers, will be meeting with Her Majesty as part of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kampala, Uganda. As the head of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty has proven to be a strong leader, offering guidance and advice to many countries, not only those over which she reigns.

Above all, Her Majesty has promoted the values of democracy, racial equality and tolerance. Nowhere was this more evident than in relation to South Africa and the fight to end apartheid.

Both the Queen and Prince Philip have maintained their close association with issues that are near and dear to Canadians. In particular, the involvement of his Royal Highness with the youth of our country through the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards program and his

commitment to issues related to the environment have been hallmarks of his contribution as consort. We should also recognize the royal couple's special and continuing friendship with the Canadian Forces.

I hope that all honourable senators will join with me in congratulating the Queen and Prince Philip on this auspicious occasion. Long may they live.

[Translation]

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, today, November 20, is Universal Children's Day. The United Nations designated this day to commemorate the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989. Ever since, all nations are encouraged to observe this day as one of worldwide fraternity and understanding between children. Therefore, this is a perfect opportunity to promote children's right to life and safety.

In my previous speech, I emphasized that we have to be proactive in fighting violence against children. I would therefore like to introduce a major proactive initiative to ban the use of corporal punishment on children.

In 2004, following a Supreme Court decision on spanking, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario decided to put together a coalition of national organizations concerned about child welfare. The coalition's purpose is to ban corporal punishment.

Honourable senators, more than 271 organizations from across Canada have now signed the Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth. These include health professionals, mental health experts, social workers, religious groups, organizations that defend children's rights, lawyers, first responders and researchers who care about children's rights. They believe that the government should ban outright the use of corporal punishment as a way to discipline children.

To illustrate the credibility of the coalition, here is a list of some of its member organizations: The B.C. Institute Against Family Violence, the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association, the Children's Aid Society of Halifax, Toronto Public Health, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec, Montreal's Hôpital Sainte- Justine, Catholic Family Services of Saskatoon, Jewish Family Services in Edmonton, the Yukon Family Services Association, Justice for Children and Youth, the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Association of Social Workers and the College of Family Physicians of Canada. I could go on reading the whole list of 271 member organizations. I want to thank them all.

Honourable senators, all of these organizations believe that respect for the fundamental rights of children means banning corporal punishment. They are qualified and experienced. They work with children and their families. They witness first-hand the consequences of using violence to discipline children.

Honourable senators, on this Universal Children's Day, I urge you to offer your full support to these organizations working to protect children's rights.

(1410)

[English]

National Child Day Celebrations in the Senate

Hon. Ethel Cochrane: Honourable senators, today marks the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1991. The theme for National Child Day 2007 is "The Right to be Active."

Honourable senators, this chamber was very active yesterday as children from across Ottawa came here with their warmth, passion and energy. These schoolchildren positively charmed us with their powerful words, beautiful music and outstanding athletic achievements. Through their impressive performances, they reminded us of the importance and power that rests in simply taking action.

The theme of the Senate event was "Include us; include us all." Indeed, it was clear to everyone how those children, many with various physical and developmental challenges, overcame many obstacles and barriers.

For example, we witnessed Lucas Hanuman, a visually impaired guitarist, perform an original song that he had composed just hours before arriving at the event. One thing that he said that I thought was especially poignant was, "Just because we have quote/unquote 'disabilities,' we find our own ways to get things done."

Josh Bartlett, an amazing fundraiser for autism research, spoke beautifully about his little sister Sophia and her experience with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Josh is only days away from turning 14 years old and has already raised more than $14,000 for autism research.

Christina Campbell, a Special Olympian who won a gold and four silver medals at the Special Olympics in Shanghai, dazzled us with her rhythmic gymnastics routine. She explained that people with disabilities need to feel included and supported, and that these were keys to her personal success. She added, "When I'm included, I try my best." I have no doubt, honourable senators, that she will do her best again for Canada at the 2011 games in Athens.

Honourable senators, I was profoundly moved by the passion and the eloquence of these children. I commend the Speaker of the Senate as well as Senators Keon, Mercer and Munson and their staff for organizing a truly powerful event. I was deeply touched by the words and performances of these incredible youth. It was both an inspiration and a motivation. I applaud all those children, and I thank them for reminding me and all of us of the power of both action and inclusion.

(1415)

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Hon. Marilyn Trenholme Counsell: Honourable senators, I too wish to speak about children. Today, as we know, is a day of celebration in recognition of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; a day made even more special in this country because we too have made our own declaration: A Canada fit for children.

The children of Canada are our future. All that we do for them during our lifetime will be reflected in their lives. All that we fail to do will also be reflected in the span of Canada's years. The majority of Canada's children are healthy. They are succeeding at school and many are bringing glory to our nation through scholarship, the arts and sports. Our youngest citizens ask the most important questions. They may also offer the most insightful answers. In human rights, global issues, the environment and sheer goodness, they have much to teach my generation. However, too many of our children are being left behind and are not reaching their full potential.

Therefore, honourable senators, on this day dedicated to Canada's children, I am bound to reflect on why this is true: first, poverty in a million Canadian homes; second, a failure to make children a national priority; and third, all too often an unwillingness to acknowledge the latest research and non- fulfillment of our duty to act, especially by governments.

We cannot accept that as many as one third of our children are vulnerable. They are the orphan's orphan when it comes to mental health and addiction. Maternal depression is said to be the single greatest contributor to childhood vulnerability, regardless of socio-economic status.

One path of action stands above all others if we are to do our utmost as individual citizens and as a nation to respect the rights of each child to reach her or his potential. That path is early childhood intervention. It must begin with our youth, even before they enter into parenthood, followed by maternal and prenatal health taken far more seriously than ever before in Canada.

Every child must be assessed as soon as possible after birth and then at two to three years for signs of health and developmental disorders. Physical and mental challenges must be identified at the earliest possible stage, with appropriate interventions and sustained follow-up. Parents must be involved continuously. There must be an enlightened will at the national, provincial, territorial and community level to make early childhood development a priority in our homes and wherever child care is provided in our communities.

From the Governor of the Bank of Canada to this nation's foremost researchers and educators, from neuroscientists to social scientists we are hearing the same message: Children are our greatest investment. Every dollar spent now will save $6 to $8 in the future, yet this message falls on deaf ears all too often.

Parents of children with learning disorders, autism, FASD, ADHD and the new one, CAPD, chronic auditory processing disorder, anxiety disorders, depression, and even bipolar and schizophrenic symptoms, are crying for help yet Canada all too often offers tokenism instead of commitment and generosity.

Aboriginal parents desperately need education and prenatal care. Their children need a head start in every sense that such programs can be developed. Canada can and should become a leader in public education.

Public Service Commission 2006-07 Annual Report

Recruitment Rate of Visible Minorities

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, the Public Service Commission produced its 2006-07 annual report a couple of weeks ago. Shockingly, it reveals that the Public Service of Canada does not reflect the mosaic and rich diversity of this country. Indeed, we have just learned that there remains a gap for visible minorities between their workforce availability and their representation in the public service.

Recruitment for visible minorities has shown a marked drop from 9.8 per cent in 2005-06 to 8.7 per cent in 2006-07. If the recruitment rate for visible minorities does not increase, the gap in representation will only become aggravated.

On November 14, the President of the Public Service Commission, Madam Barrados, appeared as a witness before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. When answering questions posed by senators on the current standing of visible minorities in the Public Service Commission she said:

The good news occurs when there is a centrally run program like the PSC's effort last year to get a pool of pre-qualified visible minorities into the EX group. . . . The only way that I can characterize what is going on is to say that when effort and attention is put to it, we do well.

That said, when there is no effort the opposite is true and there are insufficient visible minorities hired into the public service. Furthermore my colleague, Senator Nancy Ruth, asked Madam Barrados why so many government departments and organizations do not have staffing strategies to address employment equity groups.

(1420)

Madam Barrados responded that:

The new act . . . allows departments to put in one of the asset qualifications as part of merit that they are looking for someone who is from one of the employment equity groups. That provision is being used rarely and that is a concern of mine.

In response to suggestions that visible minorities are not being hired because not enough attention is being applied to their employment needs, Madam Barrados said to the committee:

By and large —

She is referring here to a provision of the Public Service Employment Act.

— this provision is not being used, and that is a concern.

She goes on to say that almost no one is using the provision. Is it that managers in Canada's public service just do not want to hire visible minorities?

As Senator Di Nino so aptly put it:

This is a truly shameful situation. . ..This has been going on for far too long and to hear, in effect, that we are going backwards is not acceptable.

My great concern is that, for visible minorities, there was an actual decrease in the total number of visible minority appointments in the public service when applications were on the increase. What is more puzzling is that, while a record number of visible minorities were hired into senior management positions, the overall numbers still decreased. That, indeed, is shameful.

Who will Canada's public service hire in a decade from now? According to Statistics Canada, in 2010 — just three years from now — 50 per cent of Canada's population growth will depend on immigrants, some 75 per cent of whom will be visible minorities.

Honourable senators, enough is enough. When will Parliament develop concrete policies — make-it-happen policies — that will positively affect hiring strategies in Canada's public service?

Cycling in Russia

Hon. Peter A. Stollery: Honourable senators, some years ago the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs conducted a study of Russia, which I chaired. We were the first parliamentary group that I know of to take a serious look at that country. At that time, I had the distinct impression that many witnesses were talking through their hats. I do not intend that comment to be a criticism of our staff. I was involved in trying to get witnesses, and we got some terrific ones, but too many did not seem to me to know enough about Russia, outside of a bit of Kremlinology. Hence, I decided to take a look at Russia on my own and got out my bicycle.

Since then, I have cycled a couple of thousand kilometres, from Western Europe to east of Moscow. One very difficult day, four years ago, I was approaching a town named Torshok, between Vishny Volochek and Tver on the main road to Moscow from St. Petersburg. For more than 70 kilometres, it poured cold rain. There are forests; they were drenched. The occasional group of mushroom pickers huddled under plastic sheets. There was no shelter for me and no hotels. There were no buildings other than one restaurant gas station complex where I walked in like a drowned rat. No rooms.

At Torshok, there is a V. One road goes around the town and the other goes into it. What to do?

As I was about to take the road around, hoping for a motel at the other exit, through the pouring rain I spied in the distance a figure on a bicycle coming my way from the town. It was another long-distance cyclist loaded with bags. I thought he might know of a place to stay, and companionship in adversity is a great thing. He slowed down. "English?" I shouted. "Français?" "Deutsch?" "Castillano?" "Castillano," he shouted back. "Sixty-two days from Zaragosa."

Long-distance cycling is a solitary business. We are idiosyncratic people. The two of us stood in cold, unrelenting rain and talked like mad to each other. His name was Jesus San Agustin Vicente. He was heading for Latvia, to study Russian before he went any further. He saved my bacon. There was a terrific small hotel in Torshok, and I would have missed it. It was already four o'clock in the afternoon, and I tried to talk him out of what was going to be a bad run west. Off he went.

Last week, four seasons later, I got an email in Spanish. "Arrived in Tokyo."

Don Jesus San Agustin Vicente, I salute you.

[Translation]

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

The Honourable Marjory LeBreton

Letter to Charlottetown Guardian Regarding Canada Pension Plan Tabled

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a letter written by Minister LeBreton, sent to the editor-in-chief of The Guardian, entitled "Government is Investing in Seniors."

Chief Electoral Officer

2006-07 Annual Report Pursuant to Privacy Act Tabled

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, pursuant to section 72 of the Privacy Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

(1425)

[English]

The Honourable Marjory LeBreton

Letter to Charlottetown Guardian Regarding Canada Pension Plan Tabled

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, I request leave to table a document that was mentioned during Question Period last Thursday. It is my reply to Senator LeBreton's original letter to the editor which was published in the November 8 edition of The Guardian.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

Official Languages

Report Pursuant to Rule 104 Tabled

Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, which outlines the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, p. 139.)

[English]

Fisheries and Oceans

Report Pursuant to Rule 104 Tabled

Hon. Bill Rompkey: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report on the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, p. 140.)

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Report Pursuant to Rule 104 Tabled

Hon. Art Eggleton: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, p. 141.)

Human Rights

Report Pursuant to Rule 104 Tabled

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, p. 143.)

Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament

Second Report of Committee Presented

Hon. Wilbert J. Keon, Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, presented the following report:

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament has the honour to present its

SECOND REPORT

Pursuant to Rule 86(1)(f)(i), your Committee is pleased to report as follows:

1. The issue of the reinstatement of bills from the previous session of the same Parliament has been raised in the Senate on a number of occasions in recent years. The Senate does not currently have any provision in its Rules dealing with the reinstatement of bills following a prorogation. As a result, some bills, particularly non- government bills, have been reintroduced and debated or studied in a number of successive sessions.

2. Since 1998 the House of Commons has provided for the reinstatement of non-government bills from the previous session in the same Parliament. Provision was originally made that an item of Private Members' Business would be reinstated at the request of the Member in question, although it is now automatic. Non-government public bills originating in the Senate can also be reinstated in the Commons at the same stage they had reached during the prior session if such bills are re-introduced in the House of Commons within the first 60 sitting days of the session, after being passed again by the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Commons is satisfied that the bills are in the same form as they were at the time of prorogation. In the case of government bills from the Commons, reinstatement is not automatic, but may be effected by passing a motion to that effect. From time to time, the government has proposed a general motion in a second or subsequent session of Parliament allowing it to reinstate bills if certain conditions are met.

3. A review of reinstatement in provincial and territorial legislatures indicates that there is a range of practice on this matter. In nine of the 13 legislatures, there does not appear to be a practice of reinstating bills. In Alberta, the Standing Orders provide that a government bill can be reinstated on motion in a new session of the same Legislature. In Manitoba, on the other hand, reinstatement is by way of ad hoc motions in a new session. In Ontario, provision for carry-over of bills has sometimes been made at the end of one session and sometimes at the beginning of a new session in the same Legislature. Finally, in Quebec, reinstatement of bills in a new session of the same Legislature is made by a motion of the Government House Leader in the first three sitting days after debate on the opening speech.

4. Both the House of Lords and the House of Commons in the United Kingdom provide for the reinstatement or carry- over of bills between sessions of the same Parliament. In the House of Lords, this is restricted to bills that have not yet left the House, and is based on ad hoc motions after informal consultations. In the House of Commons, measures were established in 2002 to allow for the reinstatement of bills. One reason for this change was to avoid duplication of work. It is also felt that it results in legislation being reviewed in a less rushed environment with a longer time perspective, allowing for more thorough scrutiny.

5. It must be noted that in no case does reinstatement apply between Parliaments.

6. The Senate and individual senators have no control over when prorogation occurs. Unlike other legislative bodies, the Canadian Parliament does not have annual sessions. Given the length of time that bills often take to work their way through the legislative process, and the time and energy that can be invested in the consideration of bills, the concept of reinstatement has merit.

7. At the same time, your Committee believes strongly that no reinstatement provision should be automatic. Each proposal to reinstate a bill must be considered separately, on its own merits. Your Committee is also of the view that it is appropriate for the Speaker to review a bill whose reinstatement is proposed, in order to ensure that it is indeed in the same form as a bill from the previous session. Your Committee further believes that it should be available for all bills: government bills, senators' public bills and private bills originating in the Senate, as well as for government and private members' bills from the House of Commons. In no case, however, should third reading of any bill in the Senate be dispensed with in the new session.

Your Committee recommends that the Rules of the Senate be amended as follows:

(1) That the following new rule 80.1 be added after current rule 80:

Reinstatement of a bill from the previous session

80.1. (1) A public or private bill may be reinstated from the previous session only pursuant to this rule.

Senate bill

(2) During the first twenty-one sitting days of the second or subsequent session of a Parliament, a Senator may, upon presenting a bill which is then read a first time, immediately advise the Senate that it is in the same form as a Senate bill when introduced during the preceding session.

Commons bill

(3) During the first thirty sitting days of the second or subsequent session of a Parliament, a Senator may, immediately following receipt by the Senate of a message from the House of Commons with a bill which is then read a first time, advise the Senate that it is in the same form as a Commons bill when received by the Senate during the preceding session.

Notice of motion to reinstate a bill

(4) After advising the Senate either under subsection (2) or (3), the Senator shall then immediately give notice of a motion that the bill be reinstated.

Definition of "same form"

(5) For the purposes of this rule, a bill shall be considered to be in the same form only if the text of the following elements are identical to those in the version as introduced during the preceding session: title, preamble, clauses, schedules, headings, marginal notes, summary, and Royal Recommendation.

Tabling text of committee amendments

(6) If, under paragraph (13)(c), the reinstatement of a bill would require consideration of amendments recommended by a committee during the previous session, the Senator shall, when giving notice of a motion to reinstate, lay upon the Table the text of the amendments proposed in that report.

Tabling list of amendments

(7) If, under paragraph (13)(e), the reinstatement of a bill would result in amendments from the preceding session being deemed made to the bill, the Senator shall, when giving notice of a motion to reinstate, lay upon the Table a list of the amendments that will be incorporated into the bill if the motion is adopted.

Reinstatement of a government bill

(8) A bill that was a government bill during the preceding session shall only be reinstated if it is again introduced as a government bill.

Reinstatement of a Senate public or private bill

(9) Only the Senator who presented a Senate public or private bill during the preceding session may act under subsection (2). If, however, the Senator who introduced the original bill is Speaker, is a Minister of the Crown, is Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, is retired, is deceased, or has resigned, any Senator may act under subsection (2).

Reinstatement of a private bill

(10) For greater certainty, a private bill may be reinstated only if, pursuant to rule 109, the presentation and first reading are preceded by a favourable report on the petition.

Speaker to advise Senate that bill is in same form

(11) A motion to reinstate a bill shall not be moved until the Speaker has advised the Senate that the bill is in the form described in subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be. If documents relating to the bill must be tabled under either subsection (6) or (7), the Speaker shall also advise the Senate whether the documents tabled are accurate. If the Speaker advises the Senate that any of these requirements have not been met, the notice of motion to reinstate the bill shall be withdrawn and the Speaker shall forthwith ask when the bill shall be read a second time.

Delayed application of rule 27(3)

(12) Rule 27(3) shall not apply to a notice of motion to reinstate a bill until after the Speaker has advised the Senate pursuant to subsection (11).

Procedures for consideration and effect of motion

(13) A motion to reinstate a bill shall be deemed a substantive motion, but shall not be amendable, except as provided in paragraph (b). The motion may be debated for no more than two hours. The Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion no later than the fourth sitting day the order for resuming debate is called. If the motion is negatived, the Speaker shall forthwith ask when the bill shall be read a second time. If the motion is adopted, the bill shall be dealt with as follows:

Second reading

(a) If the original bill was under consideration at second reading in the preceding session, the reinstated bill shall be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting.

Committee study

(b) If the original bill was before a standing committee in the preceding session, the reinstated bill shall be referred to the same committee. If the original bill was before a special committee, the motion to reinstate the bill shall specify a committee to which it shall be referred and, in this case only, the motion may be amended to specify a different committee. In either case, the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished on the original bill in committee are deemed referred to the committee during the current session.

Report stage

(c) If a committee report recommending one or more amendments to the original bill was before the Senate in the preceding session, the amendments recommended by the committee shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate and shall be placed on the Orders of the Day under Reports of Committees for consideration at the next sitting.

Third reading

(d) If the original bill was under consideration at third reading in the preceding session, or if the original bill was adopted at third reading and passed by the Senate without amendment, the reinstated bill shall be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting.

Amendments from preceding session deemed made to bill

(e) If, in the preceding session,

(i) a report recommending one or more amendments to the original bill was adopted, or

(ii) the original bill was adopted at third reading and passed by the Senate with one or more amendments,

the amendments shall be deemed to have been approved by the Senate upon the adoption of the motion for reinstatement, and the reinstated bill, as amended, shall be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting. In no other case shall an amendment from the preceding session be deemed made to the bill upon adoption of the motion to reinstate. Notwithstanding any other rule or practice, an amendment to the bill that is deemed to have been approved by the Senate under this paragraph may be amended or deleted during the course of subsequent proceedings on the reinstated bill during the current session.

Bills negatived during the preceding session

(14) A bill that was negatived by the Senate at any stage in the preceding session shall not be reinstated.

(2) That the following consequential changes be made to rule 58:

(a) Delete "and" at end of paragraph 58(1)(i);

(b) Change current paragraph 58(1)(j) to 58(1)(k); and

(c) Insert new paragraph: "(j) for the reinstatement of a public or private bill under rule 80.1; and".

Respectfully submitted,

WILBERT J. KEON
Chair

The Hon. the Speaker: When shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Keon, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

Third Report of Committee Presented

Hon. Wilbert J. Keon, Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, presented the following report:

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament has the honour to present its

THIRD REPORT

Pursuant to Rule 86(1)(f)(i), your Committee is pleased to report as follows:

1. In a ruling given on October 26, 2006, dealing with the process for raising questions of privilege, the Speaker noted three aspects of the Senate's procedures which could be clarified. First, he considered the level of detail required in the written and oral notices to raise a question of privilege under Rule 43 and concluded that the notice should clearly identify the issues that will be raised as a question of privilege. Second, the Speaker invited your Committee to examine the apparent inconsistency of Rules 43 and 59(10) insofar as the two provisions deal with the notice required for questions of privilege. Third, the Speaker invited your Committee to examine ways in which the rules might more clearly delineate the beginning and end of the Routine of Business, as under Rule 23(1), questions of privilege and points of order cannot be raised during the Routine of Business or during Question Period.

2. On March 20, 2007, your Committee heard from Mr. Charles Robert, Principal Clerk, Chamber and Procedure Office, Senate of Canada.

3. After reviewing the Speaker's ruling, and examining the issue, your Committee believes that the following amendments should be made to the Rules of the Senate:

With respect to the written notice to be given by a senator wishing to raise a question of privilege, your Committee agrees that the notice should provide some detail so as to give senators an indication of the subject of the general nature of the issue to be raised. Accordingly, amendments are proposed to sections 3, 4, and 7 of Rule 43.

Rule 59(10) allows a question of privilege to be raised without notice. As the Speaker explained, this Rule is linked to the pre-1991 provisions of the Rules of the Senate and should have been reviewed as a consequence of the amendments that were adopted at that time. The idea behind Rule 59(10) should be maintained to allow matters that occur during a sitting of the Senate to be dealt with. Nevertheless, your Committee believes that it would be helpful to move this provision and link it more directly to the other provisions relating to questions of privilege and to clarify how they relate to one another. Accordingly, a new section to Rule 43 is proposed.

The Speaker noted in his ruling of October 2006 that Rule 23(1) prohibits points of order or questions of privilege during either the Routine of Business or Question Period. A careful reading of Rule 23(6), however, indicates that Senators' Statements are, in fact, not part of Routine of Business, as it provides that the Routine of Business is a distinct category of business called after Senators' Statements. The intent behind this Rule is that the regular business of the Senate at the beginning of each sitting, whose time is limited, should not be interrupted. Your Committee agrees that the prohibition on points of order should apply to Senators' Statements as well, and an appropriate amendment to the Rules is proposed.

4. These proposed amendments lead to a number of consequential changes to the Rules of the Senate.

Your Committee recommends that the Rules of the Senate be amended as follows:

(1) That section (1) of Rule 23 be replaced with the following:

Consideration of questions of privilege and points of order

23. (1) During proceedings of the Senate taking place before Orders of the Day, including Senators' Statements, Routine of Business, Question Period and Delayed Answers, it shall not be in order to raise a point of order. Any point of order in respect to any proceeding shall be raised either at the time the Speaker announces Orders of the Day or, in relation to any notice given during the Routine of Business, when the Order is called for consideration by the Senate.

(2) That sections (3), (4), (7), and (10) of Rule 43 be replaced with the following:

Written notice

(3) Subject to section (3.1) below, a Senator wishing to raise a question of privilege shall, at least three hours before the Senate meets for the transaction of business, give a written notice of such question to the Clerk of the Senate, provided that the written notice shall clearly identify the subject matter that will be raised as a question of privilege.

Exception — Proceedings in Chamber

(3.1) With respect to a question of privilege arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting, a Senator has the option of either raising it immediately without written notice or giving written notice in accordance with sections (3) and (4).

Notice for Friday

(4) Notwithstanding section (3) above, a Senator wishing to raise a question of privilege on a Friday shall, at not later than 6:00 o'clock p.m. on the immediately preceding Thursday, give a written notice of such question to the Clerk of the Senate clearly identifying the subject matter that will be raised as a question of privilege.

Oral notice

(7) A Senator having given a notice, in accordance with section (3) or (4) above, shall be recognized during the time provided for the consideration of "Senators' Statements", for the purpose of giving oral notice of the question of privilege. In doing so, the Senator shall clearly identify the subject matter that will be raised as a question of privilege and shall indicate that he or she is prepared to move a motion either calling upon the Senate to take action in relation to the matter complained of or referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.

Order of consideration

(10) The order in which the notices were received under sections (3), (3.1) or (4), as the case may be, shall determine the order of consideration of questions of privilege.

(3) That section 10 of Rule 59 be deleted and that current sections 11 to 18 be renumbered as 10 to 17.

Respectfully submitted,

WILBERT J. KEON
Chair

The Hon. the Speaker: When shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Keon, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

(1430)

Fisheries and Oceans

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Issues Relating to New and Evolving Policy Framework for Managing Fisheries and Oceans and Refer Papers and Evidence from Previous Session

Hon. Bill Rompkey: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans;

That the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished by the Committee on the subject during the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament be referred to the Committee; and

That the Committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than Friday, June 27, 2008.

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Permit Electronic Coverage

Hon. Bill Rompkey: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be empowered to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings.

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Engage Services

Hon. Bill Rompkey: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have power to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of its examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it.

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Permit Electronic Coverage

Hon. Art Eggleton: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be empowered to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings.

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Engage Services

Hon. Art Eggleton: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology have power to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of its examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it.

Aboriginal Peoples

Notice of Motion Requesting Government Response to Study on Recent Reports and Action Plan Concerning Drinking Water in First Nations Communities

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence, I will move:

That, pursuant to Rule 131(2), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the Government to the Eighth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, entitled Safe Drinking Water for First Nations, tabled in the Senate on May 31, 2007 and adopted by the Senate on June 12, 2007 during the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament, with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians being identified as the Minister responsible for responding.

Notice of Motion Requesting Government Response to Study on Involvement of Aboriginal Communities and Businesses in Economic Development Activities

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence, I will move:

That, pursuant to rule 131(2), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government to the sixth report from the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, entitled Sharing Canada's Prosperity — A Hand Up, Not a Handout, tabled in the Senate on March 20, 2007 and adopted by the Senate on March 27, 2007, with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Canada, and the Minister of Natural Resources Canada being identified as Ministers responsible for responding.

[Translation]

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Permit Electronic Coverage

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be authorized to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings.

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Federal Government Responsibilities and matters generally relating to Aboriginal Peoples

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be authorized to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada;

That the Committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than December 31, 2008.

(1435)

[English]

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Engage Services

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples have power to engage services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of its examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it.