Journals of the Senate
58 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2009, Canada
Journals of the Senate
2nd Session, 40th Parliament
Issue 82
Monday, December 14, 2009
2:00 p.m.
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Baker, Banks, Brazeau, Brown, Callbeck, Campbell, Carignan, Carstairs, Champagne, Charette-Poulin, Comeau, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, Di Nino, Downe, Duffy, Dyck, Eaton, Eggleton, Fairbairn, Finley, Fortin-Duplessis, Fraser, Furey, Gerstein, Grafstein, Greene, Harb, Hervieux-Payette, Housakos, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Lang, Lapointe, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lovelace Nicholas, MacDonald, Manning, Martin, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Merchant, Mitchell, Mockler, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nancy Ruth, Nolin, Ogilvie, Oliver, Patterson, Pépin, Peterson, Plett, Poy, Ringuette, Rivard, Robichaud, Rompkey, Segal, Seidman, Smith, Stewart Olsen, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Wallace, Wallin, Watt, Zimmer
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Baker, Banks, Brazeau, Brown, Callbeck, Campbell, Carignan, Carstairs, Champagne, Charette-Poulin, Comeau, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Dallaire, Dawson, Day, Di Nino, Downe, Duffy, Dyck, Eaton, Eggleton, Fairbairn, Finley, Fortin-Duplessis, Fraser, Furey, Gerstein, Grafstein, Greene, Harb, Hervieux-Payette, Housakos, Hubley, Jaffer, Johnson, Kenny, Keon, Kinsella, Lang, Lapointe, LeBreton, Losier-Cool, Lovelace Nicholas, MacDonald, Manning, Martin, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, *Mercer, Merchant, Mitchell, Mockler, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nancy Ruth, *Neufeld, Nolin, Ogilvie, Oliver, Patterson, Pépin, Peterson, Plett, Poy, Ringuette, Rivard, Robichaud, Rompkey, Segal, Seidman, Smith, Stewart Olsen, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Wallace, Wallin, Watt, Zimmer
The first list records senators present in the Senate Chamber during the course of the sitting.
An asterisk in the second list indicates a senator who, while not present during the sitting, was in attendance to business, as defined in subsections 8(2) and (3) of the Senators Attendance Policy.
PRAYERS
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Some Honourable Senators made statements.
DAILY ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Tabling of Documents
The Honourable Senator Comeau tabled the following:
Document entitled Canada's Engagement in Afghanistan — September 2009.—Sessional Paper No. 2/40-908.
Response to the Legislative Review of Export Development Canada (December 2009).—Sessional Paper No. 2/40- 909.
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Day presented the following:
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has the honour to present its
THIRTEENTH REPORT
Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, has, in obedience to its order of reference of December 11, 2009, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.
Your committee has also made certain observations, which are appended to this report.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH A. DAY
Chair
Observations to the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
During the committee's examination of this legislation, it was brought to our attention that certain First Nations spokespersons have indicated they will be treated unfairly under this legislation.
The committee would therefore encourage the Ontario and British Columbia governments to consider that for all First Nations people, purchasing products or services used, on or off reserve, be provided with no greater an HST burden than currently exists under GST and PST.
The Honourable Senator Day moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dawson, 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.
Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills
The Honourable Senator Ringuette presented a Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (unfunded pension plan liabilities).
The bill was read the first time.
The Honourable Senator Ringuette moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, that the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading two days hence.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Tabling of Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations
The Honourable Senator Jaffer tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation at the Fourth Conference for Members of Parliamentary Committees on the Status of Women and Other Committees Dealing with Gender Equality, held in Geneva, Switzerland, on September 28 and 29, 2009.—Sessional Paper No. 2/40-910.
SPEAKER'S RULING
Our houses of Parliament, both the Senate and the House of Commons, equally possess certain rights and immunities to protect their proceedings and members from any undue interference. Such immunities and rights constitute "parliamentary privilege,'' and they are an important part of the law of Parliament.
The fundamental importance of privilege is acknowledged in rule 43(1), which states that:
The preservation of the privileges of the Senate is the duty of every Senator. A violation of the privileges of any one Senator affects those of all Senators and the ability of the Senate to carry out its functions ...
Through privilege, the Senate has the capacity to, among other things, summon witnesses, discipline its members, and punish as contempt any action or conduct that it feels offends the authority and dignity of this house, even when it does not breach a specific parliamentary privilege.
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice has long provided the standard statement respecting the character and purpose of privilege. In the 23rd edition, at page 74, it states that:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively ..., and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
This definition makes clear that an essential element of privilege is the need for these rights and immunities so that the houses and parliamentarians can fulfill their duties.
On December 3, 2009, the Honourable Senator Cools rose on a question of privilege after having given the necessary written and oral notices. In speaking to the question of privilege, the senator identified a press release issued on December 2, 2009, by Benjamin Perrin, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of British Columbia. The release dealt with Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). It included a statement asserting that the senator had stalled the bill in the Senate by unilaterally adjourning debate. It also claimed that "As a result of her inaction, alleged child traffickers in a Calgary case announced today will benefit from lax sentences that the current law permits. The Senate must take action.''
Senator Cools explained that the release demonstrated a lack of understanding about parliamentary practice, and Senate procedure more particularly. Items are adjourned by decision of the Senate, as she noted, not by the unilateral action of a single senator. The senator also noted that, far from blocking progress on the bill, she had gladly yielded to Senator Dyck to speak. The period the bill has since stood in Senator Cools' name is nothing out of the ordinary.
Going beyond these points, Senator Cools claimed that the release constituted an act of intimidation directed at her, and, more generally, an attempt to force adoption of the bill in a precipitous manner. In Senator Cools' view the statements were untrue and incited scorn and contempt towards her.
Senators Harb, Carstairs, Dyck, Fraser, and Cowan generally expressed sympathy with Senator Cools' concerns. Through their remarks they underscored the lack of understanding about Senate procedure that the release demonstrated, and the offensive nature of its contents. The history of Bill C-268, both in the Senate and the House of Commons, was also analyzed in detail. Senator Carstairs made several references to Beauchesne and to the importance of freedom of speech, the most fundamental right of parliamentarians.
Senator Comeau, on the other hand, did not see a question of privilege. He spoke to the right of all Canadians to express their views. Nothing in the release, according to the senator, constituted a real threat or intimidation. Senators Di Nino and Martin made similar points. While sympathizing with Senator Cools, Senator Di Nino pointed out that the matter at hand was not the bill and how long it had been before Parliament, but whether privilege was infringed by a Canadian citizen expressing his views in a critical way.
I again wish to thank all honourable senators for the input they provided on this question of privilege. As I have already noted, the privileges we enjoy, both collectively and individually, are essential for us to perform our functions. The thoughtful and considered comments by senators showed how well this is understood.
The Speaker's role at this point is to address the narrow issue of whether there is a prima facie question of privilege, using the four criteria set out in rule 43(1). This inevitably requires that consideration be given to a broader range of issues. The standard definition of privilege, from Erskine May, was quoted earlier. This is a foundation upon which to base how we deal with such questions. It is, however, also important to remember that privilege has changed over time. Matters considered breaches of privilege or contempt in a less democratic era, are no longer treated as such. At one time, for example, those reporting words spoken in Parliament risked imprisonment. Today we encourage the media to report on our proceedings.
As the English philosopher John Stuart Mill pointed out in On Liberty, more than 150 years ago, it is not our role as parliamentarians to suppress the liberty of the citizen, particularly in the exercise of free speech.
We now understand that public engagement in national affairs is to be fostered and nurtured. It is part of the vibrant democracy we enjoy in Canada. Good debate inside Parliament, and therefore good legislation and policy, is helped by informed criticism from keen observers and the general public.
With useful criticism, however, we must all too often be willing to accept ill-informed, indeed harsh and offensive, comments. We need not like it at all, but no one occupying a position in Parliament, at the heart of public life, can claim exemption from being exposed to sometimes unmerited or ignorant criticism.
In the specific case before us, we must draw a distinction between the question of privilege and Bill C-268 itself. Disagreeable or offensive words are not in themselves sufficient to violate privilege. Instead, it must be shown how these words can be reasonably seen as impairing a specific privilege. Issues of contempt must also be approached with caution. Citation 62 of Beauchesne notes that a statement must be "purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit'' to possibly constitute contempt.
In the case at issue, it is certainly true that the press release contained inaccuracies. For example, Senator Cools did not unilaterally adjourn debate on Bill C-268. Proper processes under the Rules were followed, resulting in the item currently standing in her name. This kind of misunderstanding is not uncommon, and for this reason we have sought to foster a better understanding of how the Senate works.
While the senator can speak if she wishes, nothing prevents other senators from speaking to the bill, as has been made clear in past rulings, so Senator Cools cannot be said to have "stalled'' the bill. Indeed, nothing prevents the Senate from making a decision on the motion for second reading, should this chamber so determine, at any time the order for resuming debate is called.
What is more, some of the language in the release was exaggerated, to say the least. To suggest that one senator is at fault for how accused criminals are treated under the law is fallacious. To then imply some link between the senator and slavery is offensive. Such ad hominem attacks serve little purpose, and could even harm the cause they seek to advance.
This said, we must ask in what way Senator Cools' privileges were affected, especially her freedom of speech? In what way were the Senate's privileges infringed? Citation 69 of Beauchesne states that "It is very important ... to indicate that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive, but it may not be a question of privilege unless the comment actually impinges upon the ability of [parliamentarians] to do their job properly.'' Similarly, in a report of the Rules Committee from the third session of the 34th Parliament, adopted by the Senate on June 10, 1993, stated that:
An adverse reflection upon a Senator or the Senate can constitute breach of privilege, but only if it impedes the Senator or the Senate from performing parliamentary functions. As such, it has a very narrow application, and is to be distinguished from actions for defamation, which are available to all citizens and are pursued through the civil courts. It is extremely difficult to bring oneself within the protection offered by this aspect of parliamentary privilege.
Nothing in the release has forced any change as to how the Senate will deal with Bill C-268, nor could it. Senator Cools can speak freely to the bill, subject to our Rules and practices. Other senators can do the same. Neither her right to speak, nor that of any other honourable senator, has been infringed. Eventually, at a time determined by the Senate, it will make a decision on second reading of Bill C-268.
As to the issue of contempt, mere ignorance of Senate Rules does not constitute purposeful untruth or deceit. We have no basis to see more in the current case. It may also be of interest to note here that, when Beauchesne refers to threats attempting to influence members, it appears to envision more than merely uninformed or disagreeable commentary. Citation 99 explains that normal practice is now to turn investigation over "to the ordinary forces of the law.'' This suggests an entirely different type of matter from mere words in a press release. It implies direct threat and menace, even physical intimidation.
To turn to the criteria identified in rule 43(1) for determining if there is a prima facie question of privilege, it is clear that the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity. It is not, however, clear how this matter directly concerns privilege. While the language in the press release was exaggerated, and Senator Cools can quite rightly be offended by it, nothing in it affected the Senate's right to deal with Bill C-268 as it sees fit. All senators can still speak freely. A few lines in a press release are not enough to cause honourable senators, let alone the whole chamber, to change their minds or course of action. The ruling is therefore that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Second reading of Bill C-64, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2010.
The Honourable Senator Gerstein moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallin, that the bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Ringuette moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hubley, 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-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
The Honourable Senator Di Nino moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator MacDonald, that the bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Inquiries
Order No. 2 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Bills
Orders No. 4, 8, 9, 10, 1 and 3 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallace, seconded by the Honourable Senator Eaton, for the third reading of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended;
And on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCoy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Campbell, that the original question be now put.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted, on division.
The question then being put on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallace, seconded by the Honourable Senator Eaton, for the third reading of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended, it was adopted.
The bill, as amended, was then read the third time and passed.
Ordered, That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House that the Senate has passed this bill, with certain amendments, to which it desires its concurrence.
° ° °
Order No. 5 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 18 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, for the second reading of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses).
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau, for the Honourable Senator Gerstein, moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Champagne, P.C., that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Spivak, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallace, for the second reading of Bill S-204, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (establishment and protection of Gatineau Park).
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Nolin 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.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, for the second reading of Bill S-233, An Act to amend the State Immunity Act and the Criminal Code (deterring terrorism by providing a civil right of action against perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism).
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Tardif moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C., that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Orders No. 22 and 23 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 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, entitled: The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, tabled in the Senate on June 11, 2009.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Keon, that further debate on the consideration of the report be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Order No. 4 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (Bill S-223, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to enact certain other measures in order to provide assistance and protection to victims of human trafficking, with amendments), presented in the Senate on December 8, 2009.
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallace, that the report be adopted.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator McCoy, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Consideration of the fourteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources (budget—release of additional funds (study on the energy sector)), presented in the Senate on December 10, 2009.
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Consideration of the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (budget—study on Canada's national and international human rights obligations—power to hire staff and to travel), presented in the Senate on December 10, 2009.
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rivard, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Order No. 8 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Consideration of the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (budget—release of additional funds (study on the current state and future of Canada's forest sector)), presented in the Senate on December 10, 2009.
The Honourable Senator Mockler moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Consideration of the eighth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled: The Canadian Forest Sector: Past, Present, Future, tabled in the Senate on December 10, 2009.
The Honourable Senator Mockler 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 ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (budget—release of additional funds (study on matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada)), presented in the Senate on December 11, 2009.
The Honourable Senator Hubley moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson, that the report be adopted.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Other
Orders No. 96, 73 (motions), 32 (inquiry) and 105 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day:
That,
(a) Canada supports the democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
(b) Canada condemns the use of violence and force by Iranian authorities against their own people to suppress pro- democracy demonstrations following the Iranian presidential elections of June 12, 2009;
(c) Canada condemns the use of torture by Iranian authorities;
(d) Canada calls for the immediate release of all political prisoners held in Iran;
(e) Canada calls on Iran to fully respect all of its human rights obligations, both in law and in practice;
(f) Canada condemns Iran's complete disregard for legally binding UN Security Council Resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, and 1803 and International Atomic Energy Agency requirements;
(g) Canada affirms its opposition to nuclear proliferation and condemns any pursuit by Iran of nuclear weapons capability;
(h) Canada recommends to international organizations of which it is a member that a new set of targeted sanctions be implemented against Iran, in concert with allies, unless Iran comes into compliance with its human rights and nuclear obligations in law and in practice;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Di Nino, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the motion be amended by adding a new recommendation:
(i) Canada condemns the use of discrimination, both religious and ethnic, as a means of suppressing the population of Iran.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nolin, that further debate on the motion in amendment be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Grafstein:
That,
Whereas works of art and historical objects, including silver baskets offered as wedding gifts to the Duke of York (who later became King George V), as well as a porcelain set decorated with war scenes by the Canadian Maritime artist Alice Hagen, kept at the Governor General's residence at Rideau Hall but shelved during the last few years, have recently been sold online through the Department of Public Works;
Whereas there does not seem to be any adequate policy regarding the status and management of works of art and historic objects previously at Rideau Hall;
Whereas there is an urgent need to prevent the scattering of other such items without any regard to their historical character or the protection of Canadian heritage,
It is moved that this chamber:
deplore that decorative items related to Canada's history, and in the past to Rideau Hall, were sold publicly without any regard to their special importance to Canadian heritage;
express its surprise that no heritage management policy at Rideau Hall prevents such scatterings;
demand that the contents of rooms reserved for official functions at Rideau Hall be subsequently managed by an authority at arm's length from the building's occupants in order to preserve their historical character;
that the National Capital Commission carefully manage the art and artifacts previously in use at Rideau Hall; and
that surplus moveable art or decorative works of art be offered first to the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Library and Archives Canada or Canadian museums recognized for their role and mandate in preserving and promoting our country's historical heritage.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Orders No. 30, 10 (inquiries), 13, 67, 51, 25, 8 (motions), 21 (inquiry), 42, 93, 94, 9, 7 (motions), 1 and 27 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kenny, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore:
That the Rules of the Senate be amended:
(1) In rule 86(1)(r), by deleting the words ", including veterans affairs''; and
(2) By adding, after rule 86(1)(t), the following:
"(u) The Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, composed of twelve members, four of whom shall constitute a quorum, to which may be referred, as the Senate may decide, bills, messages, petitions, inquiries, papers and other matters relating to veterans affairs generally.''
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Day moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Grafstein, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Hubley, calling the attention of the Senate to the Treaty on Cluster Munitions.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Ordered, That Order No. 7 (motion) be again called.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Baker, P.C.:
That the Senate endorse the following Resolution, adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at its 17th Annual Session, held at Astana, Kazakhstan, from June 29 to July 3, 2008:
RESOLUTION ON A MEDITERRANEAN FREE TRADE AREA
1. Reiterating the fundamental importance of the economic and environmental aspects of the OSCE concept of security,
2. Recognizing that without economic growth there can be no peace or stability,
3. Recalling the importance that the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly accords to the development of international trade, as underlined by the Assembly's fifth economic conference on the theme of Strengthening Stability and Co- operation through International Trade, which was held in Andorra, in May 2007,
4. Maintaining that creating a free trade area will, inter alia, contribute significantly to the efforts to achieve peace,
5. Recalling that the European Union itself was made possible by the establishment of free-trade areas, first the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 and then the European Economic Community in 1957,
6. Recalling the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, in which OSCE participating States expressed their intention "to encourage with the non-participating Mediterranean States the development of mutually beneficial co-operation in the various fields of economic activity'' and to "contribute to a diversified development of the economies of the non-participating Mediterranean countries'',
7. Recalling the Helsinki Final Act, in which OSCE participating States recognized "the importance of bilateral and multilateral intergovernmental and other agreements for the long-term development of trade'' and undertook "to reduce or progressively eliminate all kinds of obstacles to the development of trade'',
8. Celebrating the decision made at the OSCE Summit in Budapest in 1994 to create a Contact Group with Mediterranean Partners for Cooperation,
9. Expressing support for the Barcelona Declaration of 1995 regarding the establishment of a free trade area between the members of the European Union and all Mediterranean states by 2010,
10. Saluting the American Middle East Free Trade Area Initiative (MEFTA) launched in 2003,
11. Concerned by the slow pace of economic development in the Middle East, especially in the agriculture sector and the knowledge-based economy, where two-thirds of the population is under the age of 35,
12. Considering the obstacles to economic growth posed by agricultural trade and tariff barriers, as discussed at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Rhodes in 2004,
13. Considering the lack of direct foreign investment in Middle Eastern Arab countries and the concentration of such investment in a small number of these countries,
14. Noting that despite the efforts made in the Middle East to stimulate free trade, economic growth in Mediterranean countries is markedly stronger in the Israel-Europe-North America axis than among countries in the region, and
15. Encouraged by the increased literacy rate and the increased participation of women in the domestic economies of countries in the Mediterranean basin,
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:
16. Recommends the creation of a Mediterranean Economic Commission whose objective would be to quickly reduce trade barriers and facilitate the transition to a knowledge-based economy in countries in the region;
17. Recommends the creation of a Mediterranean Agricultural Marketing Board whose objective would be to create jobs in the agriculture sector for young people in the region;
18. Invites OSCE participating countries and partner states for co-operation to intensify their efforts under the Barcelona Process and to more fully benefit from the MEFTA Initiative in order to expedite the establishment of a free-trade area among all Mediterranean countries;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that the words "That the Senate endorse'' at the beginning of the motion be replaced by the words "That the Senate take note of''.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nolin, that further debate on the motion in amendment be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
SPEAKER'S RULING
On December 10, Senator Cools raised a point of order during debate on the series of amendments to the motion for third reading of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. The senator questioned Senator Comeau's participation in debate for what appeared to be a second time.
A brief chronology of events may help us understand what exactly happened. When the sitting resumed at 8 p.m., there was some initial business, after which Senator Comeau moved the adjournment of debate without actually participating in it. After an hour bell, the motion was rejected. Senator Dallaire then spoke briefly on the amendments. Senator Comeau then moved the adjournment of the Senate. That motion was also rejected after another hour bell, and Senator Comeau subsequently rose to speak, after which he moved the adjournment of debate.
Senator Cools questioned whether Senator Comeau should have been speaking at this point. Several other senators expressed a range of views on the point of order.
Parliamentary authorities provide some assistance on this issue. Page 601 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, states that "If a Member moves a motion during his or her speech (e.g., an amendment or a motion to adjourn debate), the act of moving the motion will terminate the Member's speech.'' Page 346 of the fourth edition of Bourinot notes that "If a member should move the adjournment of debate, and the house should negative that motion, he will have exhausted his right of speaking on the main question.''
As is often the case, the Senate is flexible in its practices, not always applying these provisions rigidly. Since the matter has been raised, however, it is clear from the authorities that, with the rejection of his motion, Senator Comeau had exhausted his time in speaking to the amendments on Bill C-6 and cannot speak again to them.
INQUIRIES
The Honourable Senator Tardif called the attention of the Senate to the career of the Honourable Senator Milne in the Senate and her many contributions in service to Canadians.
Debate concluded.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C.:
That,
Whereas the Senate of Canada recognizes that contemporary principles of animal welfare, sustainable development, ecosystem-based management and precautionary principles must be applied, and the contribution of Aboriginal traditional ecological knowledge to these principles must be recognized;
Whereas the Senate of Canada recognizes the moral obligation to treat all species without cruelty and with respect;
Whereas the Senate of Canada recognizes that the contributions to ecosystem diversity and function made by the sustainable use of natural resources by humankind, without prejudice against species that might be regarded as competitors in drawing on these resources;
That the Senate of Canada affirms that a balanced ecosystem is the result of constant interactions between predators and prey throughout the food web, that humans are an integral part of the ecosystem and, therefore, that their position as predators cannot be separated from nature;
That the Senate of Canada affirms that humankind can legitimately raise, harvest and use animals that are either wild or farmed and this for purposes that are either economic, personal or scientific; 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,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
The Honourable Senator Peterson moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dyck:
That the Senate urge the government to immediately introduce legislation that will amend the Canada Post Act and create a Rural Canadian Postal Service Charter that achieves the following principles:
(a) Canada Post will maintain a postal system that allows individuals and businesses in Canada to send and receive mail within Canada and between Canada and elsewhere. Canada Post will provide a service for the collection, transmission and delivery of letters, parcels and publications;
(b) The provision of postal services to rural regions of the country is an integral part of Canada Post's universal service;
(c) Canada Post Corporation will place a moratorium on the closure, amalgamation and privatization of rural post offices;
(d) Canada Post Corporation will deliver mail at rural roadside mail boxes that were serviced by that corporation on September 1, 2005; and
(e) Canada Post will establish and promulgate complaint resolution processes that are easily accessible to customers and will address complaints in a fair, respectful and timely manner.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
REPORTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 28(2):
Report of the administration of the Firearms Act for the year 2008, pursuant to the Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39, sbs. 93(2).—Sessional Paper No. 2/40-907.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mockler:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 6:03 p.m. the Senate was continued until 2 p.m. tomorrow.)
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 85(4)
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The Honourable Senator Peterson replaced the Honourable Senator De Bané, P.C. (December 14, 2009).
The Honourable Senator Mitchell replaced the Honourable Senator Peterson (December 14, 2009).
The Honourable Senator Greene replaced the Honourable Senator Neufeld (December 14, 2009).
The Honourable Senator Campbell replaced the Honourable Senator Chaput (December 11, 2009).
The Honourable Senator Peterson replaced the Honourable Senator Mitchell (December 11, 2009).
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
The Honourable Senator Meighen replaced the Honourable Senator Nolin (December 14, 2009).
The Honourable Senator Dallaire replaced the Honourable Senator Day (December 11, 2009).
The Honourable Senator Downe replaced the Honourable Senator Zimmer (December 11, 2009).