Journals of the Senate
56 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2007, Canada
Journals of the Senate
2nd Session, 39th Parliament
Issue 22
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
2:00 p.m.
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Angus, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Biron, Brown, Callbeck, Campbell, Carney, Carstairs, Champagne, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Downe, Dyck, Eggleton, Eyton, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, Fox, Fraser, Furey, Goldstein, Grafstein, Gustafson, Harb, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Lapointe, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Mahovlich, Massicotte, Meighen, Merchant, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nancy Ruth, Oliver, Pépin, Peterson, Phalen, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, Segal, Sibbeston, Smith, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Watt, Zimmer
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Adams, Angus, Bacon, Baker, Banks, Biron, Brown, Callbeck, Campbell, Carney, Carstairs, Champagne, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cochrane, Comeau, Cook, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, De Bané, Di Nino, Downe, Dyck, Eggleton, Eyton, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, *Fortier, Fox, Fraser, Furey, Goldstein, Grafstein, Gustafson, Harb, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Lapointe, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Mahovlich, Massicotte, Meighen, Merchant, Milne, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nancy Ruth, *Nolin, Oliver, Pépin, Peterson, Phalen, Ringuette, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, Segal, Sibbeston, Smith, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, *Trenholme Counsell, Watt, Zimmer
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Documents
The Honourable Senator Comeau tabled the following:
First report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182, entitled: The Families Remember, (December 2007).—Sessional Paper No. 2/39-282.
Directive to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regarding the health of Canadians, dated December 10, 2007, pursuant to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, S.C. 1997, c. 9, sbs. 19(1).—Sessional Paper No. 2/39-283.
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., Chair of the Special Senate Committee on Aging, presented its second report (budget—study on the implications of an aging society in Canada—power to hire staff).
(The report is printed as appendix "A'' at pages 372-380 (available in print format PDF).)
The Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C. moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stollery, that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration two days hence.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, tabled its fourth report (interim) entitled: Livestock Industry.—Sessional Paper No. 2/39-284S.
The Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Grafstein, 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 Munson, for the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, presented its second report (budget—study to examine and monitor issues relating to human rights and inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations—power to hire staff and to travel).
(The report is printed as appendix "B'' at pages 381-388 (available in print format PDF).)
The Honourable Senator Munson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chaput, 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 Munson, for the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, presented its third report (budget—study to monitor the implementation of recommendations contained in the committee's report entitled Children: The Silenced Citizens: Effective Implementation of Canada's International Obligations with Respect to the Rights of Children—power to hire staff).
(The report is printed as appendix "C'' at pages 389-394 (available in print format PDF).)
The Honourable Senator Munson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mitchell, 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 Munson, for the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, presented its fourth report (budget—study to examine cases of alleged discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the Federal Public Service and to study the extent to which targets to achieve employment equity for minority groups are being met—power to hire staff).
(The report is printed as appendix "D'' at pages 395-400 (available in print format PDF).)
The Honourable Senator Munson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley, 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 Munson, for the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, presented its fifth report (budget—study on Matrimonial Real Property—power to hire staff).
(The report is printed as appendix "E'' at pages 401-406 (available in print format PDF).)
The Honourable Senator Munson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chaput, 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 Fraser presented the following:
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its
FOURTH REPORT
Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments), has, in obedience to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 21, 2007, examined the said Bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:
1. Clause 18, page 7: Replace lines 3 and 4 with the following:
"appears shall advise the accused of his or her right to apply for an order under subsection''.
2. Clause 19, page 7: Replace, in the English version, lines 31 and 32 with the following:
"(a) cause the portions of an information or indictment against the accused that are in an''.
3. New clause 21.1, page 9: Add after line 3 the following:
"21.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 532:
532.1 The Minister of Justice shall prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament an annual report for the previous year on the operation of the provisions of this Part that includes
(a) the number of orders granted under section 530 directing that the accused be tried before a justice of the peace, provincial court judge, judge or judge and jury who speak both official languages of Canada;
(b) the number of trials held in French outside the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick; and
(c) the number of trials held in English within the province of Quebec.''.
4. New clause 21.2, page 9: Add before line 4 the following:
"21.2 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 533:
533.1 (1) Within three years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Part shall be undertaken by any committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons, or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.
(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within any further time that may be authorized by the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any changes that the committee recommends.''.
5. New clause 45.2, page 20: Add after line 16 the following:
"45.2 (1) If Bill C-2, introduced in the 2nd session of the 39th Parliament and entitled the Tackling Violent Crime Act (the "other Act''), receives royal assent, then subsections (2) to (4) apply.
(2) If subsection 21(3) of the other Act comes into force before section 7 of this Act, that section 7 is replaced by the following:
7. Section 255 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3.2):
(3.3) For greater certainty, everyone who is liable to the punishment described in any of subsections (2) to (3.2) is also liable to the minimum punishment described in paragraph (1)(a).
(3) If subsection 21(3) of the other Act comes into force on the same day as section 7 of this Act, then that section 21(3) is deemed to have come into force before that section 7 and subsection (2) applies as a consequence.''
6. Clause 46, page20: Replace line 17 with the following:
"46. Sections 7, 8, 18 to 21.2, 29, 35, 37 to 40,''.
Your committee has also made certain observations, which are appended to this report.
Respectfully submitted,
JOAN FRASER
Chair
Observations to the Fourth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Your Committee would like to express an additional concern on the use of official languages in criminal proceedings, with regard to the special situation of Canada's Aboriginal people.
Clause 31 of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments), refers to the Territory of Nunavut. Your Committee is sensitive to the reality that many Aboriginal people speak neither of Canada's official languages. The additional difficulties created by interpretation are broadly recognized.
Your Committee pointed out in the observations attached to its Second Report on Bill S-10, A second Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of the Province of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law, tabled on November 25, 2004, the existence of "Aboriginal traditional law, [which] pre-existed the two other sources of law'', and urged that "a way should be found to integrate Aboriginal legal traditions into Canadian law alongside the civil and common law in a manner that will better reflect Canada's diversity.''
The importance of training and appointing judicial personnel in criminal cases who are fluent in the appropriate Aboriginal language, particularly in the more isolated northern communities, should be among the priorities of the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. To this end, the Committee also urges the government to collect statistics on the number of criminal proceedings where aboriginal languages are used.
The Committee notes that the Minister of Justice in his appearance before the Committee on November 28, 2007, acknowledged the concerns of the Committee that not only judicial personnel, but also defence counsel in some parts of the country lack the capacity to communicate with the accused in a minority official language. The Minister agreed to follow up with his provincial counterparts on the issue, indicating that:
[t]he training of defence lawyers is not exactly within the federal sphere, but I would be pleased to pass along those comments.
One final observation concerns the fear expressed by a witness of the potential extra-territorial application of clause 5 of the bill, which deals with the transmission and reception of information relating to book-making, betting and wagering, among other things. For the sake of clarity, the Committee wishes to note that it is satisfied that clause 5 of the bill will not have extra-territorial application.
The Honourable Senator Fraser moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
A message was brought from the House of Commons with a Bill C-35, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2008, to which it desires the concurrence of the Senate.
The bill was read the first time.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading later this day.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS
Pursuant to rule 25(2), the Honourable Senator Comeau, tabled the following:
Reply to Question No. 6, dated October 17, 2007, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Downe, respecting the relocation of public servants from Ottawa to Gatineau.—Sessional Paper No. 2/39-285S.
Reply to Question No. 8, dated October 17, 2007, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Downe, respecting the naming of Canadian federal government buildings.—Sessional Paper No. 2/39-286S.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Stratton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Eyton, for the second reading of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Tardif moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cowan, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Second reading of Bill C-35, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2008.
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Johnson, 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.
The Honourable Senator Stratton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, 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.
Motions
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino:
That, notwithstanding the Order adopted by the Senate on October 18, 2007, when the Senate sits on Wednesday, December 12, 2007, it continue its proceedings beyond 4 p.m. and follow the normal adjournment procedure according to Rule 6(1); and
That committees of the Senate scheduled to meet on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 be authorized to sit even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Ordered, That Order No. 12 be brought forward.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-219, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (elimination of bureaucratic patronage and establishment of national area of selection).
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Tardif moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., that the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Ordered, That Order No. 5 under Commons Public Bills, be brought forward.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Campbell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Peterson, for the second reading of Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Tardif moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cowan, that the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Senate Public Bills
Third reading of Bill S-207, An Act to repeal legislation that has not come into force within ten years of receiving royal assent.
The Honourable Senator Banks moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, 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 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.
Orders No. 2 to 9 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., for the Honourable Senator Carney, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, for the second reading of Bill S-217, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act (bulk water removal).
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Tkachuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Johnson, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Carney, P.C. tabled the following:
Letter to the Honourable Senator Carney, P.C., by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated November 30, 2007, concerning the reintroduction of Bill S-217, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act (bulk water removal) (English text).—Sessional Paper No. 2/39-287S.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver:
That the Standing Senate Committees on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources; Fisheries and Oceans; and Foreign Affairs and International Trade have power to sit today at their scheduled times and at 5 p.m. in the case of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that the application of Rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 11 and 13 to 18 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Commons Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees
Consideration of the second report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (committee budgets—legislation), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Tardif moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (budget—study on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada— power to hire staff and to travel), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Sibbeston moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (budget—study on rural poverty in Canada—power to hire staff and to travel), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C. moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (budget—study on the present state and the future of agriculture and forestry in Canada—power to hire staff), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C. moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce (budget—study on interprovincial barriers to trade—power to hire staff and to travel), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Angus moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Brown, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce (budget—study on domestic and international financial system—power to hire staff and to travel), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Angus moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gustafson, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources (budget—study on emerging issues related to its mandate—power to hire staff), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Banks moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (budget—study to examine such issues that may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations generally—power to hire staff), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Di Nino moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (budget—study on the national security policy of Canada—power to hire staff and to travel), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Kenny moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Phalen, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (budget—study on Veterans Affairs—power to hire staff and to travel), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Day moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (budget—study on Aboriginal languages—power to travel), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Keon moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Segal, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (budget—study on cities—power to hire staff), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Keon moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications (budget—study on the examination of containerized freight traffic handled by Canada's ports—power to hire staff and to travel), presented in the Senate on December 6, 2007.
The Honourable Senator Bacon moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 14 and 15 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Orders No. 3, 11, 69 (motions), 4 (inquiry), 5 (motion) and 6 (inquiry) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
The order was called to resume debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Stollery, seconded by the Honourable Senator Corbin:
That the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled Overcoming 40 Years Of Failure: A New Road Map For Sub-Saharan Africa, tabled in the Senate on February 15, 2007 during the First Session of the Thirty-Ninth Parliament, be adopted and that, pursuant to Rule 131(2), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of International Cooperation and the Minister of National Defence being identified as Ministers responsible for responding to the report.
SPEAKER'S RULING
On Thursday, November 29, when the Senate had reached the Notice Paper, Senator Carstairs raised a point of order to challenge the propriety of a motion moved by Senator Stollery. This motion sought to adopt the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on Sub-Saharan Africa, tabled in the last session, and to request a response from the government in accordance with rule 131(2).
Senator Carstairs warned that the motion of Senator Stollery posed some serious problems. This was because the report proposed for adoption was not actually before the Senate, since it had died with the prorogation of the previous session. In any debate, she argued, it would not be possible to amend the contents of the report. If the report were to be considered revived through motions like this, Senator Carstairs asked whether it might be possible to do the same with reports from ten or fifteen years ago.
After this initial intervention, several other Senators spoke to the point of order. Senator Cools noted that the Senate did not have cognizance of the report in question as it was not a report of the current session produced by a committee in this session. Senator Corbin, on the other hand, recounted how the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade had agreed at its first meeting to mandate Senator Stollery to propose this motion, an account subsequently corroborated by Senator Di Nino.
When he spoke, Senator Stollery explained how, once he had the mandate from the committee, his motion was prepared in light of a previous case.
In her intervention, Senator Fraser proposed a possible solution to the specific problem raised in the point of order. The Senator suggested that a motion might be phrased to reference the report of the last session without seeking its adoption, and then solicit a statement from the government with respect to it.
In considering this issue, it is essential to underscore that a committee report that has not been adopted by the Senate is exactly that, a report of a committee to the Senate. A report only becomes a report of the Senate if and when it is adopted. Except in the case of a report on a bill without amendments, which is automatically adopted under rule 97(4), adoption gives the Senate the opportunity to debate and possibly amend a report. As Senators know, under rule 97(3) a tabled report does not have to be moved for adoption, but adoption is a necessary step for requesting a government response under rule 131(2).
The issues in this point of order are complex. Indeed in certain respects it recalls discussions that took place at the end of last session on the meaning and operation of rule 131(2). In considering the current point of order, it is helpful to begin by addressing the fundamental question of whether business from a previous session can be reinstated or revived. Practices in the Senate, in the Commons, in the provinces, and in the Parliament at Westminster make it clear that business can indeed be revived or reinstated from a previous session, at least within the same Parliament. This is done by a clear and deliberate decision, either by adopting a motion or by establishing provisions in Rules or Standing Orders.
This in no way reduces the significance and impact of prorogation. All business then before a House of Parliament dies at prorogation. With reinstatement or revival, the House exercises its fundamental control over its own affairs and decides how it will conduct new business in the new session. In the Senate, we have had many motions relating to committee work that have had the effect of continuing studies and referring work and evidence from past sessions. We have also had motions to request government responses to reports adopted in a previous session or even a previous Parliament. In the Commons, all non-government public business — both bills and motions — is reinstated in the following session of the same Parliament. In addition, government business is frequently reinstated by House order. The Commons also provides for the automatic continuation of requests for papers, including requests for government responses to committee reports. Finally, in some provinces and at Westminster, various practices exist to allow the reinstatement of bills.
As Senators know, a proposal is currently before the House to allow for the reinstatement of bills. While this proposal has not been adopted, it is nonetheless competent for the Senate to revive or reinstate other types of business, such as committee business, if a clear decision to that effect is made. This respects the competing principles of the prerogative of the Crown to prorogue Parliament and the fundamental freedom of parliamentary Houses to structure their business as they see fit.
In reviewing the issues raised by Senator Carstairs and others, I noted a relevant ruling, given by my distinguished predecessor on February 19, 2004, which dealt with two similar points of order. The first concerned a motion, in a new session, to request a government response to a report adopted during the preceding session. That motion was held to be in order, and the motion was subsequently adopted. Since then, there have been five such motions adopted, including two earlier in this session. Given that such motions request responses to previously adopted reports, this practice is acceptable.
The second point of order raised in 2004 dealt with a motion both to adopt a report from a previous session and to request a government response. The ruling found the motion to be in order. Until now, this had been the only instance of this kind of motion. The motion moved by Senator Stollery paralleled the 2004 example, and, accordingly, it was properly drafted in light of that ruling.
This said, Senator Carstairs' point of order raises issues that were not fully addressed in the 2004 case. In particular, she asked how far into the past such motions can reach, and, equally important, whether the report proposed for adoption by the Senate can be amended.
Such uncertainty is not conducive to orderly proceedings in the Senate. My analysis of the situation suggests that the motion under consideration would not necessarily allow the Senate to amend the report. I find the indirect closing off of one important element of free and full debate unacceptable, in this case. The objection about how far back in time such motions can go is also real. In light of these problems, it would be more appropriate to find a different approach to reach the objective sought by Senator Stollery in his motion.
An additional difficulty with the motion is that rule 131(2) clearly requires that the report in question be from a committee. The question is, therefore, whether this report from a past session, cited in the current session, is, truly, a report of a committee of this session. There was no order of reference in the current session, and no report has been tabled or presented. As noted, prorogation does have real practical effects in Parliament, and the report should not be seen as a report of this session to which rule 131(2) could apply. Because the motion in question invokes rule 131(2), it must fulfill the conditions stipulated in that rule.
What is needed, therefore, is a clear and direct procedure that unambiguously places the report before the Senate in the current session and allows Senators ample opportunity for debate. Several such processes seem to be available. As already noted, committees often seek to revive studies from the previous session and to have the relevant papers and evidence referred back to them. A Senator could, therefore, move a motion, on notice, to authorize the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to study issues relating to Africa, and to refer the papers, evidence, and work from last session back to the committee. If this motion were adopted by the Senate, the committee would then be seized of all that information. It could adopt a new report, identical to the old one, or evaluate whether some of the previous work should be adjusted. The new report could then be tabled in the current session and treated like any other tabled report.
A second approach might be to follow the process outlined in citation 890 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's. Although the 2004 ruling referred to the citation, it appears to me that its meaning was not fully followed. Taking into account the citation and Senate practice, a motion might be moved, on notice, to place a report from a previous session on the orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting. This type of preliminary motion would effectively, and clearly, reinstate or revive the report of the previous session. It might then be treated as a report in the current session, subject to possible amendment, and also allow for a motion to adopt and request a government response.
While these approaches may be more time-consuming, they have the great advantage of allowing the fullest possible opportunity for debate and discussion. They avoid the pitfall of forcing the Senate to accept or reject entirely a report from the previous session without the possibility of amendment.
There is yet another viable approach that might be available, along the lines suggested by Senator Fraser. As already stated, the report addressed by the motion in question does not fall under rule 131(2), being a report from a previous session that was neither adopted nor revived. Consequently, the Senate is not bound by the processes of the rule. It might be possible, therefore, for a Senator to move, on notice, a motion simply requesting a government response to the committee report of the previous session, without asking for its adoption by the Senate. Since the Senate would not actually adopt the report, it would remain simply a report of the committee, not of the Senate. This could be a third approach.
As a final point relating to government responses and prorogation, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that, because the Senate does not have rules providing that requests for government responses are automatically revived in a new session, such requests do, in fact, die at prorogation. If a response is still desired in the new session, it must be renewed by motion, with a new period of 150 days, if the motion is adopted. This is different from the House of Commons, which does have a Standing Order allowing requests for government responses to committee reports to survive in a new session of the same Parliament. In the Senate, the government does, of course, have the option of tabling on its own initiative a response to a committee report from a previous session, under the authority of rule 28(3). This has occurred several times during the current session. Such responses are not, however, made under rule 131, and are not automatically referred to committee under rule 131(4).
This point of order, like the discussion late in the last session, shows that the process for requesting government responses has many unexpected complexities. The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures, and the Rights of Parliament may, therefore, wish to consider revisiting the entire issue in detail to provide needed clarification. The committee could also examine how far back in time such requests can go. While recognizing the importance of this aspect of the issue, a decision by the Speaker at this time would be highly speculative, and a solution requires detailed consideration. Let me emphasize that any decision by the committee to undertake such work belongs not to me, as Speaker, but to the committee itself, under rule 86(1)(f)(i), or to the Senate, if it gives the committee a specific order of reference.
As it stands, if a report was adopted in a past session or a past Parliament, a government response can be requested under rule 131(2), and must be renewed in each subsequent session, whether in the same Parliament or a new one. If, however, the report was not adopted, a motion such as this one is not adequate, given the factors raised in discussion of the point of order. However, other means are available to achieve the objective of Senator Stollery's motion.
Debate on the current motion cannot proceed, and it is to be discharged from the Order Paper.
(Accordingly, the Order of the Day for resuming debate on Motion No. 64 was discharged.)
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Segal, seconded by the Honourable Senator Keon:
WHEREAS the Canadian public has never been consulted on the structure of its government (Crown, Senate and House of Commons);
AND WHEREAS there has never been a clear and precise expression by the Canadian public on the legitimacy of the Upper House since the constitutional agreement establishing its existence;
AND WHEREAS a clear and concise opinion might be obtained by putting the question directly to the electors by means of a referendum;
THAT the Senate urge the Governor in Council to obtain by means of a referendum, pursuant to section 3 of the Referendum Act, the opinion of the electors of Canada on whether the Senate should be abolished; and
THAT a message be sent to the House of Commons requesting that House to unite with the Senate for the above purpose.
After debate,
Further debate on the motion was adjourned until the next sitting in the name of the Honourable Senator Tardif.
Orders No. 65 (motion), 3, 1 (inquiries) and 4 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino:
That the Senate do now adjourn during pleasure to reassemble at the call of the chair with a fifteen minute bell; and
That, the Speaker not see the clock at 6 p.m. and that rule 13(1) be suspended for today.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 4:50 p.m., the Senate adjourned at pleasure.)
At 5:45, the sitting resumed.
REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 28(2):
Debt Management Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, S.C. 1999, c. 26, s. 23.—Sessional Paper No. 2/39-277.
Report of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors for the year ended June 23, 2007, pursuant to the Canada Land Surveyors Act, S.C. 1998, c. 14, sbs. 70(2).—Sessional Paper No. 2/39- 278.
Reports of the British Columbia Treaty Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, 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. 2/39- 279.
Reports of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, 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. 2/39-280.
Report of the Canada Pension Plan, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, pursuant to the Canada Pension Plan Act, S.C. 1997, c. 40, s. 97. —Sessional Paper No. 2/39-281.
DECLARATIONS OF PRIVATE INTERESTS
Pursuant to subsection 14(1) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, a declaration of private interest was made as follows:
—By written declaration, December 7, 2007, the Honourable Senator Di Nino (Bill S-213).
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 5:49 p.m. the Senate was continued until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.)
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce
The name of the Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Poulin (December 6).
Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
The name of the Honourable Senator Hubley substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Peterson (December 6).
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The name of the Honourable Senator Merchant substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Chaput (December 6).
The name of the Honourable Senator St. Germain substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Stratton (December 10).
Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights
The name of the Honourable Senator Dawson substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Pépin (December 10).
The name of the Honourable Senator Pépin substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Dawson (December 11).
Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages
The name of the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Ringuette (December 11).