Journals of the Senate
59 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2010, Canada
Journals of the Senate
3rd Session, 40th Parliament
Issue 53
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
2:00 p.m.
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Angus, Ataullahjan, Baker, Boisvenu, Braley, Brazeau, Brown, Callbeck, Carignan, Champagne, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cochrane, Comeau, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Day, De Bané, Demers, Di Nino, Dickson, Downe, Duffy, Eaton, Fairbairn, Fortin-Duplessis, Fraser, Furey, Harb, Hervieux-Payette, Housakos, Joyal, Kinsella, Lang, Lapointe, LeBreton, MacDonald, Mahovlich, Manning, Marshall, Martin, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Mercer, Merchant, Mitchell, Mockler, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nancy Ruth, Neufeld, Ogilvie, Patterson, Pépin, Plett, Poy, Ringuette, Rivard, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, Runciman, Segal, Seidman, Smith, Stewart Olsen, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Wallace, Wallin, Zimmer
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Angus, Ataullahjan, Baker, Boisvenu, Braley, Brazeau, Brown, Callbeck, Carignan, *Carstairs, Champagne, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cochrane, Comeau, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, *Dawson, Day, De Bané, Demers, Di Nino, Dickson, Downe, Duffy, *Dyck, Eaton, Fairbairn, Fortin-Duplessis, Fraser, Furey, Harb, Hervieux-Payette, Housakos, *Hubley, Joyal, Kinsella, Lang, Lapointe, LeBreton, *Losier-Cool, MacDonald, Mahovlich, Manning, Marshall, Martin, Massicotte, McCoy, Meighen, Mercer, Merchant, Mitchell, Mockler, Moore, Munson, Murray, Nancy Ruth, Neufeld, Ogilvie, *Oliver, Patterson, Pépin, Plett, *Poirier, Poy, *Raine, Ringuette, Rivard, Rivest, Robichaud, Rompkey, Runciman, Segal, Seidman, *Sibbeston, Smith, *St. Germain, Stewart Olsen, Stollery, Stratton, Tardif, Tkachuk, Wallace, Wallin, 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 the Speaker tabled the following:
Reports of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, 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. 3/ 40-690.
Annual Report of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada for the year ending March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, s. 38.—Sessional Paper No. 3/40-691.
Reports of the Chief Electoral Officer for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, 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. 3/40-692.
° ° °
The Honourable Senator Comeau tabled the following:
Report by Export Development Canada on the application of the Alternative Fuels Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.—Sessional Paper No. 3/40-693.
Annual Report of the Global Centre for Pluralism for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010 as well as the Executive Summary of the Corporate Plan 2010.—Sessional Paper No. 3/40-694.
Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
The Honourable Senator Segal presented the following:
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism has the honour to present its
SECOND REPORT
Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, June 17, 2010, 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,
HUGH SEGAL
Chair
Observations to the Second Report of the Special Senate Committee on Anti-Terrorism
Bill S-7 serves the important objectives of deterring terrorism and terrorist financing, holding individuals, organizations and foreign states that commit and support terrorist activities accountable for their actions and providing victims of terrorism the ability to present their stories publicly in Canadian courts, potentially receiving compensation from those who have harmed them. However, the Committee believes that certain provisions of the bill could be strengthened to make Bill S-7 a more effective mechanism for achieving these goals.
A. Real and Substantial Connection to Canada (Clause 4(2))
Bill S-7 creates a cause of action (i.e., grounds to sue) that allows victims of terrorism to sue individuals, organizations and terrorist entities for loss or damage suffered as a result of acts or omissions that are punishable under PartII.1 of the Criminal Code (the part of the Code dealing with terrorism offences) and which have been committed by these individuals, organizations or entities. It also allows victims of terrorism to sue foreign states that have supported terrorist entities which have committed such acts, in certain circumstances. However, clause 4(2) of the bill provides that courts may hear and determine the cause of action only if the action "has a real and substantial connection to Canada."
In recent decisions, Canadian courts have found that the fact that a plaintiff resides in a jurisdiction is only one of several factors to be considered when determining whether or not a lawsuit has a real and substantial connection to that jurisdiction. In order to ensure that victims of terrorism who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada have the right to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism in Canadian courts, the Government may wish to consider amending clause 4(2) to specify that a person's Canadian citizenship or permanent resident status is, in and of itself, enough to establish a real and substantial connection to Canada.
B. Reasonable Opportunity to Submit the Dispute to Arbitration (Clause4(4))
Clause4(4) of Bill S-7 states that courts may refuse to hear a claim made against a foreign state in cases when the loss or damage to the plaintiff occurred in that state and the plaintiff did not give the foreign state "a reasonable opportunity to submit the dispute to arbitration in accordance with accepted international rules of arbitration."
While requiring plaintiffs to give foreign states a reasonable opportunity to submit the dispute to arbitration may encourage foreign states to settle claims made against them, concerns were also expressed during the Committee's hearings that foreign states could use this clause to unnecessarily delay or create obstacles to litigation. Accordingly, the Government may wish to consider whether clause 4(4) should be amended to ensure that lawsuits are not unduly impeded by this provision.
C. The Process for Creating a List of Foreign States That Support Terrorism (Clause 7)
Bill S-7 provides that before a foreign state can be sued in Canadian courts for supporting terrorism, the state in question must have been listed by the Governor in Council. The listing process is described in clause 7 of the bill (proposed new section6.1 of the State Immunity Act). The Minister of Foreign Affairs recommends listing, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety, and the Governor in Council decides whether or not to list. The basis for listing a foreign state is that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the state in question supported or supports terrorism. However, as clause 7 currently reads, the Governor in Council may create such a list, but is not required to do so.
Certain witnesses who appeared before the Committee expressed concern about the fact that the language used in clause 7 is permissive rather than mandatory, and that there was no defined time by which the Governor in Council is required to create such a list. The Committee therefore asks the Government to consider:
using mandatory language ("shall") rather than optional language ("may") in clause 7 to ensure that the Governor in Council will initiate the process for creating a list of state sponsors of terrorism; and
requiring a first list of designated states to be established within six months of the date that the bill comes into force, and updated every year after that, to ensure that it takes into account all States which support terrorism and that victims of terrorism are able to make effective use of the bill when suing state sponsors of terrorism.
When they appeared before the Committee, officials from Public Safety Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade advised that the criteria the Minister of Foreign Affairs will take into consideration before making a recommendation to the Governor in Council to list a state, and the criteria that the Governor in Council will take into consideration prior to listing, are still under development. It was also unclear whether or not these criteria would eventually be published in regulations made under the State Immunity Act or would be outlined in internal policy documents. The Committee believes that, in the interests of transparency, these criteria should be both subject to robust scrutiny and made publicly available, and thus, should be published as regulations. Such criteria could include the types of evidence that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Governor in Council will rely on when making a recommendation or a decision to list, such as, for example, intelligence reports from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) as well as other information available about state practices. The criteria could also include an evaluation of the risks and consequences to Canada's diplomatic, foreign policy, economic and other interests that may be associated with a decision to list a state, as well as a mechanism directing how the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Governor in Council should balance all the information being considered.
The Committee also believes that a public consultation mechanism should be incorporated into the process for listing foreign states, in order to give members of the public an opportunity to express their views on whether or not a state should be added to the list before the listing decision is made.
Concerns were also expressed regarding the impact that de-listing a foreign state might have on victims in circumstances where the Governor in Council decides to de-list a state following the commencement of the victim's lawsuit, but prior to a final judgment being rendered. Officials from Public Safety Canada advised the Committee that in such cases, courts would probably lack the jurisdiction to proceed with the cases, as the state would likely benefit from immunity once more. Accordingly, the Committee believes that a foreign state should not be de-listed before the conclusion of the lawsuit. If not, the Government may wish to consider whether clause 7 of the bill should be amended to specify that once a state is listed and a civil suit against that state has been initiated, the lawsuit must be allowed to proceed to its completion — including collection of damage awards — even if, in the middle of the process, the foreign state is de-listed. Alternatively, the Government of Canada should become the defendant in the event that the Governor in Council de-lists a state while there is a lawsuit underway against the state for supporting terrorism. Either measure would ensure that victims of state-sponsored terrorism would have the opportunity to seek compensation for loss or damage suffered as a result of such acts even if a state is de-listed prior to the conclusion of the lawsuit.
D. Ministerial Assistance Provided to Judgment Creditors in Identifying and Locating Property of Foreign States (Clause 10)
Clause 10 of Bill S-7 provides that, in the event that a judgment is rendered against a listed foreign state for supporting terrorism, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs may, within the confines of their mandates, assist a judgment creditor in identifying and locating property of the foreign state in Canada (proposed new section 12.1 of the State Immunity Act). It is important to note, however, that this provision is permissive, rather than mandatory. The ministers may assist in identifying and locating the property of the listed foreign state, "to the extent that it is reasonably practical," unless "the Minister of Foreign Affairs believes that to do so would be injurious to Canada's international relations or either Minister believes that to do so would be injurious to Canada's other interests."
Some witnesses who appeared before the Committee suggested that this provision gives the ministers in question too much latitude in deciding whether or not they will assist victims of state-sponsored terrorism in identifying and locating the Canadian property of listed states. In order to increase the likelihood that victims will be able to collect on judgments rendered against listed states, the Government may wish to consider using mandatory ("shall") rather than optional language ("may") to require ministerial assistance in identifying a foreign state's property and assets known to the government, in the event of a successful suit against the foreign state. The additional words "within the confines of his or her mandate" and "to the extent that is reasonably practical," which are already found in clause 10, as well as the series of exceptions for not having to disclose the information, already seem to ensure that the ministers will not be compelled to provide information in unreasonable or inappropriate circumstances.
E. Financial Costs to Victims of Terrorism in Proceeding with a Cause of Action
As with all litigation, lawsuits initiated against individuals, organizations and foreign states that commit terrorist acts, or support terrorism, are likely to be costly for plaintiffs to pursue. In particular, uncovering evidence that a foreign state provided financial or other support to a terrorist entity, whose actions subsequently caused harm to the plaintiff, is likely to be both complex and expensive, requiring victims of terrorism to engage the services of expert witnesses, such as, for example, forensic accountants and/or intelligence experts to demonstrate the link between the activities of the foreign state and the activities of the terrorist entity. Given that victims of terrorism, in the wake of loss or damage suffered during terrorist acts, may have limited financial resources available to them to pursue complicated and protracted litigation, the Government may wish to consider the introduction of a complementary bill, based on the American model (Section 2002 of the United States' Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000), to create a victims' fund to provide compensation to victims who were successful in their claims but did not receive compensation. This could also potentially be done through entering into funding agreements with the provinces and territories to ensure that funds are made available to victims of terrorism through provincial and territorial legal aid programs, or by creating a separate federal funding program to support victims of terrorism in pursuing these causes of action.
The Honourable Senator Segal moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Brown, 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.
Government Notices of Motions
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rivard:
That the Address of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., at the Installation of the Right Honourable David Johnston as Governor General of Canada on October 1, 2010, together with the reply of His Excellency the Governor General thereto, be printed as an Appendix to the Journals of the Senate of this day and form part of the permanent records of this House.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills
The Honourable Senator Callbeck presented a Bill S-223, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (retroactivity of retirement and survivor's pensions).
The bill was read the first time.
The Honourable Senator Callbeck moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., 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 Champagne, P.C., tabled the following:
Report of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) respecting its participation at the Cooperation and Development Committee of the APF, held in Rome, Italy, on June 8 and 9, 2010. —Sessional Paper No. 3/40-695.
ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS
Pursuant to rule 25(2), the Honourable Senator Comeau, tabled the following:
Reply to Question No. 12, dated March 4, 2010, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., respecting the Speech from the Throne read on March 3, 2010.—Sessional Paper No. 3/40-696S.
Reply to Question No. 25, dated June 8, 2010, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Downe, respecting priority appointments in the public service for medically released veterans.—Sessional Paper No. 3/40-697S.
Reply to Question No. 31, dated July 8, 2010, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., respecting the Convention of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.—Sessional Paper No. 3/40-698S.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
SPEAKER'S RULING
On September 27, Senator Cowan, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, rose on a question of privilege pursuant to rule 43. His complaint focussed on statements made by Senator Brazeau on July 6, during debate at third reading of Bill S-4, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. In separate statements Senator Brazeau had both commented on several witnesses who had appeared on the bill and made specific reference to the past work of Dr. Pamela Palmater, Chair of the Centre for Study of Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University. Subsequently, on September 11, Dr. Palmater wrote to a number of senators to complain about an attempt to discredit her that was not based on fact. She also expressed concern that Senator Brazeau's comment could harm her professionally. With leave, Senator Cowan tabled a copy of the email from Dr. Palmater, which now forms part of our record.
Senator Cowan's argument was that, having been alerted of the complaint, the Senate must act to defend Dr. Palmater's reputation. Not to act might have a "chilling effect" on the work of committees in the future. Witnesses might be reticent about appearing, fearing they could be adversely affected. Senator Cowan argued that Senator Brazeau's statement, by potentially impeding other senators' ability to perform their duties, had amounted to contempt. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that he was not questioning the outcome of any vote on Bill S-4, although he did note that it is impossible to know whether this incident affected the result. In summary Senator Cowan stated,
The critical point [in this question of privilege] is that if what Dr. Palmater says is true, and it is not dealt with, do any of us believe that, in the words of Erskine May [at page 150 of the 23rd edition], this will not "deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence" to us in the future? If future witnesses are deterred from sharing their knowledge with us, how can we perform our constitutionally prescribed duties as members of this legislative body?
Senator Comeau did not accept Senator Cowan's position. Rather, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate focussed on the right of all senators to express divergent points of view. He even suggested that an acceptance of Senator Cowan's argument could amount to an infringement of "Senator Brazeau's fundamental privilege of free speech".
In their interventions Senators Mitchell, Banks, Tardif and Fraser supported Senator Cowan's position. They spoke about the prospective harm that can be done to witnesses and expressed fears about damaging reputations. When he took the floor, Senator Brazeau noted that he was surprised at the complaint. He referred to Dr. Palmater's website to support his understanding of her past career. Before this intervention, Senator Cools had expressed her dismay about the recent tenor of debate in Parliament. She did not feel that the prohibition contained in rule 51 against "personal, sharp or taxing speeches" is always fully respected. This said, Senator Cools did not see this matter as being a question of privilege, but rather one of due process and due respect. While some words may have been spoken without sufficient reflection, there was no evidence that they were deliberately harmful or aimed at deterring future witnesses.
In considering this matter I have followed normal practice and taken into account the arguments provided by senators during debate on the question of privilege, in addition to our Rules and the insights from the parliamentary authorities.
The basic privilege in this case is freedom of speech. As noted in the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 89 and 90, this is
[b]y far, the most important right accorded to Members of the House ... [...] a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their [residents].
According to page 96 of the 23rd edition of Erskine May, this means that,
[s]ubject to the rules of order in debate, a Member may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and he is protected by his privilege from any action for libel, as well as from any other question or molestation.
This privilege is powerful, and it comes with great responsibility. In the other place, "Speakers have ... stated that although there is a need for Members to express their opinions openly in a direct fashion, it is also important that citizens' reputations are not unfairly attacked." This is at page 98 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Later, at page 617, the same work notes that,
Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent [and should] avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply in their own defence.
We must be clear, however, that it is generally true that senators have the right to express themselves freely and to say anything they want in any parliamentary proceeding. Only the Senate itself, through its Rules and practices, can constrain this right. Maingot, at page 26 of the second edition, makes this clear, stating that parliamentarians' freedom of speech is "subject only to the rules, customs, and practices" of their house.
It goes without saying that just because senators have the freedom to say something does not mean that they should avail themselves of this right in all cases. Honourable senators should be aware of the need to avoid impugning the reputations of those who do not sit in this place and who have no mechanism to defend themselves.
The case before us is somewhat complicated by the fact that it is not only parliamentarians who benefit from the protection of privilege. Witnesses are not to be molested or interfered with because of evidence that they have given or intend to give before a committee. To interfere with witnesses before their appearance or to punish them for evidence given can constitute a breach of the privileges of the Senate. This is recognized at page 150 of the 23rd edition of Erskine May, to which reference was made during debate on the alleged question of privilege.
The retrospective element of this protection is described when it is stated that,
molestation of or threats against those who have previously given evidence before either House or a committee will be treated by the House concerned as a contempt. Such actions have included assaults or a threat of assault on witnesses, insulting or abusive behaviour, misuse (by a gaoler) or censure by an employer.
The prospective element of the protection is recognized in the quote to which Senator Cowan made reference, which states that "[a]ny conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt".
The aspect of retrospective protection was not fundamental in this question of privilege. We may observe, however, that Senator Brazeau took note of some factors he felt gave context to statements in committee. While I again emphasize the need for caution when mentioning outside individuals in debate, the remarks were not of the type to which Erskine May refers. The Senate was not provided, in debate on the question of privilege, with evidence of deliberate malice, deliberate misstatements or a deliberate attempt to punish.
In terms of prospective protection, which is central to this question of privilege, the basic allegation was that subsequent criticism of the witness could keep unknown future witnesses from appearing, at some point in time. Nothing specific was offered as an illustration to show that this was anything more than a possibility. Against this vague concern, we must set the undoubted freedom of speech that all senators enjoy, subject always to our Rules, customs and practices. There is nothing concrete in this case to suggest a real conflict between the two privileges of senator's freedom of speech and the protection of identified future witnesses.
The potential for conflict between unfettered freedom of speech and the need to use it in a responsible manner has been recognized in other countries. In Australia, most parliamentary houses have established a "right of reply". In the federal Senate, for example, a person who claims to have been adversely affected in a proceeding can submit a request that a response be published. This request goes through a control process before being put into effect. Since 1988 the Australian Senate has also recognized that freedom of speech must be exercised in a responsible manner, to avoid the damaging effects that allegations can have.
In the case at issue, the Speaker's role is to evaluate whether a prima facie question of privilege is well-founded, using the four criteria in rule 43(1). There can be little doubt that the first criterion was met, since Senator Cowan only became aware of Dr.Palmater's concern on September 11.
In relation to the third criterion, that the concern be raised to seek a genuine remedy, Senator Cowan has indicated that he is ready to move referral to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
Lastly, in terms of the second and fourth criteria, it is not evident how Senator Brazeau's exercise of his undoubted freedom of speech has, in a concrete and direct way, prevented the Senate from discharging its basic functions of examining legislation, investigating public affairs and ensuring accountability. The concerns raised were speculative. Moreover, let us remember that nothing indicates that the remarks in question affected the outcome of any decision by the Senate. These two criteria have, therefore, also not been fulfilled.
The ruling is that the conditions of rule 43(1) have not been met and I am unable to apprehend that there is a prima facie question of privilege. This case does, however, serve to underscore how careful we must all be when we use the privileges we enjoy as parliamentarians. With our freedom of speech comes the responsibility to use it in a careful and considered manner that avoids harm.
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills
Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the nextsitting.
Inquiries
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills
Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the nextsitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Stollery, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier- Cool, for the second reading of Bill S-218, An Act respecting Canada-Russia Friendship Day.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator Segal moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Neufeld, that the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Orders No. 4 to 6 were called and postponed until the nextsitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Day, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, for the second reading of Bill S-208, An Act to amend the Conflict of Interest Act (gifts).
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau, for the Honourable Senator Angus, moved, seconded by the Honourable
Senator Eaton, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Orders No. 8 and 9 were called and postponed until the nextsitting.
Commons Public Bills
Orders No. 1 to 4 were called and postponed until the nextsitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, for the second reading of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Neufeld moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin, that further debate on the
motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Reports of Committees
Orders No. 1 to 8 were called and postponed until the nextsitting.
Other
Orders No. 14, 3, 11, 16 and 5 (inquiries) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser:
That the Senate of Canada encourage the Minister of National Defence, in view of the long service, sacrifice and courage of Canadian Naval forces and personnel, to change the official structural name of the Canadian Navy from "Maritime Command" to "Canadian Navy" effective from this year, as part of the celebration of the Canadian Navy Centennial, with that title being used in all official and operational materials, in both official languages, as soon as possible.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Eaton:
That the question now before the Senate be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Orders No. 8, 2, 10, 15, 12 (inquiries), 38 (motion), 13 (inquiry), 57 (motion), 7, 18, 17 (inquiries) and 50 (motion) were called and postponed until the next sitting.
MOTIONS
The Honourable Senator Meighen moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cochrane:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking Trade and Commerce be authorized to undertake the 10-year statutory review of the Business Development Bank of Canada, as required by the Business Development Bank of Canada Act and,
That the Committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2010, and retain until January 30, 2011 all powers necessary to publicize its findings.
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 Canada Lands Company Limited for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Alternative Fuels Act, S.C. 1995, c. 20, s. 8.—Sessional Paper No.3/40-680.
Copy of the Special Economic Measures (Iran) Regulations (P.C. 2010-952 and JUS-81000-2-661) and the Special Economic Measures (Iran) Permit Authorization Order (P.C. 2010-953), pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act, S.C. 1992, c. 17, sbs. 7(1).—Sessional Paper No.3/40-681.
Report of the President of the Treasury Board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Alternative Fuels Act, S.C. 1995, c. 20, s. 8.—Sessional Paper No.3/40-682.
Report on the Government of Canada's Official Development Assistance for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, S.C. 2008, c. 17, s. 5.—Sessional Paper No.3/40- 683.
Statement on the Operations of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Act, S.C. 1920, c. 54, sbs. 17(2).—Sessional Paper No.3/40-684.
Statement on the Operations of the Veterans Insurance Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. V-3, sbs. 18(2)..—Sessional Paper No.3/40-685.
Report of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1).—Sessional Paper No.3/40-686.
Report of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the period of July 13, 2009 to March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act, S.C. 2009, c. 2, ss. 297 "16(1) and (2)" and 298.—Sessional Paper No.3/40-687.
Reports of the British Columbia Treaty Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, 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.3/40- 688.
Report of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Alternative Fuels Act, S.C. 1995, c. 20, s. 8.—Sessional Paper No.3/40-689.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Comeau moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rivard:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 3:58 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 Honourable Senator Greene replaced the Honourable Senator Marshall (October 4, 2010).
Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
The Honourable Senator Martin replaced the Honourable Senator Poirier (October 4, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Runciman replaced the Honourable Senator Raine (October 4, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Chaput replaced the Honourable Senator Hubley (September 30, 2010).
Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk replaced the Honourable Senator Di Nino (September 29, 2010).
Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
The Honourable Senator Stratton replaced the Honourable Senator Greene (October 4, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Greene replaced the Honourable Senator Finley (October 4, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Campbell replaced the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C. (September 30, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Jaffer replaced the Honourable Senator Day (September 30, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Fox, P.C., replaced the Honourable Senator De Bané, P.C. (September 30, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., replaced the Honourable Senator Campbell (September 29, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Day replaced the Honourable Senator Jaffer (September 29, 2010).
The Honourable Senator De Bané, P.C., replaced the Honourable Senator Fox, P.C. (September 29, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Finley replaced the Honourable Senator Greene (September 29, 2010).
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The Honourable Senator Rivest replaced the Honourable Senator Plett (October 4, 2010).
Honourable Senator Watt replaced the Honourable Senator De Bané, P.C. (September 30, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., replaced the Honourable Senator Cowan (September 30, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Plett replaced the Honourable Senator Rivest (September 29, 2010).
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The Honourable Senator Ataullahjan replaced the Honourable Senator Finley (October 4, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Finley replaced the Honourable Senator Braley (October 4, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Braley replaced the Honourable Senator Finley (September 29, 2010).
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
The Honourable Senator Mitchell replaced the Honourable Senator Banks (October 4, 2010).
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology
The Honourable Senator Martin replaced the Honourable Senator Wallace (October 4, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Eaton replaced the Honourable Senator Dickson (October 4, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Wallace replaced the Honourable Senator Martin (September 30, 2010).
The Honourable Senator Martin replaced the Honourable Senator Patterson (September 30, 2010).