Journals of the Senate
2nd Session, 41st Parliament
Issue 114
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
2:00 p.m.
The Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin, Speaker
The Members convened were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Ataullahjan, Baker, Batters, Beyak, Boisvenu, Carignan, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Dagenais, Dawson, Day, Demers, Downe, Doyle, Eggleton, Enverga, Fortin-Duplessis, Fraser, Frum, Housakos, Hubley, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Lang, LeBreton, MacDonald, Maltais, Manning, Marshall, Martin, McIntyre, Meredith, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Neufeld, Ngo, Nolin, Ogilvie, Oh, Patterson, Plett, Raine, Ringuette, Rivard, Runciman, Seidman, Smith (Cobourg), Smith (Saurel), Stewart Olsen, Tardif, Tkachuk, Unger, Verner, Watt, Wells
The Members in attendance to business were:
The Honourable Senators
Andreychuk, Ataullahjan, Baker, Batters, *Bellemare, Beyak, *Black, Boisvenu, *Campbell, Carignan, Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Cools, Cordy, Cowan, Dagenais, Dawson, Day, Demers, Downe, Doyle, Eggleton, Enverga, Fortin-Duplessis, Fraser, Frum, *Gerstein, *Greene, *Hervieux-Payette, Housakos, Hubley, Johnson, Joyal, Kenny, Lang, LeBreton, MacDonald, Maltais, Manning, Marshall, Martin, *Massicotte, McIntyre, Meredith, Mitchell, Moore, Munson, Neufeld, Ngo, Nolin, Ogilvie, Oh, Patterson, Plett, Raine, Ringuette, Rivard, Runciman, Seidman, Smith (Cobourg), Smith (Saurel), Stewart Olsen, *Tannas, Tardif, Tkachuk, Unger, Verner, Watt, Wells
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.
With leave of the Senate,
The Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cowan:
That the Senate desires to record their deep appreciation of the distinguished service rendered by Mr. Gary W. O'Brien as Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments; and
That in acknowledgement of the dignity, dedication and profound learning with which he has graced the office, he be designated an Honourary Officer of this house with an entrée to the Senate and a seat at the table on occasions of ceremony.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
A message was brought from the House of Commons with a Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, to which it desires the concurrence of the Senate.
The bill was read the first time.
The Honourable Senator Martin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marshall, 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.
SPEAKER'S RULING
I now wish to deal with the point of order raised by Senator Moore on December 12, 2014, with respect to omnibus bills.
While the point of order was raised in relation to Bill C-43, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, Senator Moore challenged omnibus bills more generally. He stated that they:
... contain many issues that are not at all related. It is thus improper to put senators in the position of having to vote once on many unrelated issues. This is fundamentally unfair and out of order.
In outlining his concern Senator Moore addressed Canadian, provincial and international practice, as well as noting some of the literature on the matter. He summarized his position by stating that problems stemming from omnibus bills are ``... getting worse. Somebody must take a stand.''
Several senators supported these views. Senator Fraser distinguished between bills amending a wide range of laws, but clearly linked by a common thread, and those that bring together very disparate matters. She placed Bill C-43 into the latter category, a view shared by Senator Day. Senator Chaput explained, by reference to a concrete case, how omnibus bills may lead to insufficient study of some important parts of a bill, while Senator Ringuette felt that such measures impair the Senate's duty to provide sober second thought. In supporting the point of order, Senator Eggleton then noted that he actually supported some parts of Bill C-43, but, because of its broad scope, it does not allow parliamentarians to express themselves properly.
Other senators challenged these arguments. Senator Martin referred to practices in the other place when explaining that omnibus bills are an accepted part of Canadian parliamentary practice. Senator Smith (Saurel) and Senator Lang outlined how they think Bill C-43 does have a common thread — implementing a wide-ranging budget plan to deal with a challenging international economic situation and promote prosperity for Canadians. The Leader of the Government, Senator Carignan, expressed understanding for the concerns raised by Senator Moore, but underscored that the Senate can adapt its procedures as it wishes in order to deal with such problems. This house has, for example, adjusted the pre-study process provided for in the Rules in a way that allows input from a range of committees. This may help deal with some of the concerns noted.
During the consideration of the point of order a consensus developed that the Senate's study of Bill C-43 should not be delayed. Proceedings on the bill could thus continue, and it received Royal Assent the next week. While Bill C-43 is therefore no longer an issue, the broader issue about omnibus bills remains. It is, as you know, not new. Several honourable senators have objected to large and complex bills at various times over the years, so a review of the topic is timely.
Despite the concerns about omnibus bills, there has actually been only one point of order on the issue in the Senate since 1984. In a ruling given on October 23, 2003, the Speaker stated that he was ``... unaware of any requirement that [an omnibus] bill must possess a common theme ...''.
The situation is quite different in the other place, where the Speaker has addressed about the question of omnibus bills on a number of occasions. As indicated in the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at p. 725, ``It appears to be entirely proper, in procedural terms, for a bill to amend, repeal or enact more than one Act, provided that the requisite notice is given, that it is accompanied by a royal recommendation (where necessary), and that it follows the form required.'' The Speaker of the Commons has sometimes been asked to divide a bill, but has declined to do so without guidance and authority from the house. As stated on June 8, 1988, ``Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus Bills, the Chair's role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue.''
When an omnibus bill comes to the Senate from the House of Commons, we must be mindful of the fact that we are dealing with a bill already adopted by one of the component parts of Parliament. We ought not to question how or why the other place adopted the measure, but should fulfil our legislative work by conducting our own careful and independent — or autonomous — review in the way that best meets our needs. There may be situations where procedural issues can arise in relation to a bill from the Commons — I think, for example, of the occasional cases where it is found that Royal Consent is required for a bill — but they are infrequent.
In his point of order Senator Moore said that ``Somebody must take a stand'' with regards to omnibus bills. To the extent senators agree that there is a problem with this type of bill, this statement may have merit. It is not, however, for the Speaker, acting unilaterally, to decide what stand to take, or when to take it. The Speaker deals with procedural issues, in light of our Rules and practices. The Senate's Rules are silent about omnibus bills, and our practices allow for them. From this perspective, such measures are a part of how the Canadian Parliament operates. In addition, we must not lose sight of the fact that, at least in procedural terms, the question put on an omnibus bill — not the content of the bill, but the actual question — is quite simple. It is whether the bill will be read a second or third time. Bills are thus quite different from complex questions, where the Speaker may, in very rare situations, exercise some discretion by dividing a motion.
Honourable senators, it may be helpful at this point to reflect briefly upon some more general issues that are relevant to omnibus bills. As the Supreme Court stated in the 2014 decision on the Reference re Senate Reform, the Senate is ``... one of Canada's foundational political institutions. It lies at the heart of the agreement that gave birth to the Canadian federation.'' As members of this house we have various duties and responsibilities, including representing our regions, legislative work, holding government to account, international work through parliamentary diplomacy, the protection of minorities, and the study and support of public policy issues. We bring our divergent backgrounds and experiences to the national Parliament as we perform these roles.
Drawing on the wealth of experience among its members, the Senate is well placed to act as a complementary chamber within Parliament. The idea of complementarity does not imply that one house is inferior to the other. Instead, the Senate and the House of Commons play different roles and interact with each other in a way that may sometimes, it is true, result in a level of tension. But this leads to an effective system of government that is greater than the sum of its parts. This interaction has been a key part of the country's constitutional architecture since its founding. Working together the houses enrich and strengthen our national Parliament. The Senate provides a different perspective from the House of Commons, even when studying similar questions, and focuses on different issues. This house can therefore provide a careful and autonomous second review of measures adopted by the elected house. Our generally less intensely partisan atmosphere, and the good working relationships we develop amongst ourselves, regardless of political affiliation, greatly assist us in performing these responsibilities.
I say this, honourable senators, because nothing should prevent us from reconsidering how we deal with omnibus bills, or any aspect of our business, if we feel that changes could help us better perform our role as parliamentarians. We must ensure that we continue to fulfil the expectations of Canadians as well as the role this house was given by those who developed our basic structures of government.
A central issue underlying Senator Moore's point of order is the way in which the Senate deals with budgetary measures and bills with financial implications. In this regard, I would remind honourable senators that almost one hundred years ago a special committee studied the rights of the Senate with respect to financial legislation. Its report — generally called the Ross Report — was tabled on May 15, 1918, and adopted on May 22. It may be timely to review this topic, so that honourable senators can consider how, in the modern context, this house can best use its powers to fulfil its duties. In any such review, attention would also have to be given to the principle, enunciated by Sir John A. Macdonald, that the Senate ``... will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.'' The proper bounds for this self-imposed limitation certainly merit reflection.
As a related point, the Senate — perhaps through one of its committees — may wish to review the way in which it could better ensure government accountability, particularly in relation to public finances and expenditures. Our practices allow the National Finance Committee to develop a strong understanding of the Estimates and the workings of government. The value of this broad oversight role has been recognized by observers, but it may be desirable to ensure that other committees develop a similar capacity. Without affecting the role of the National Finance Committee, the Senate could consider having other committees also study specific parts of the Estimates relevant to their subjects. An understanding of how other jurisdictions — both within Canada and abroad — deal with such matters would assist any evaluation of how this institution could adjust its operations.
To focus more specifically on the issue of omnibus bills, it is also possible to identify various ways in which the Senate could change its procedures, if there is a wish to do so. Here again, information on procedures for dealing with such bills in other jurisdictions would be helpful. In Saskatchewan, for example, the Rules specifically circumscribe the situations in which omnibus bills can be introduced. Only those dealing with a single broad policy or making similar amendments to existing acts are allowed.
In the Senate a practice has developed to use pre-study for budget implementation bills, and to allow different committees to provide input in relation to those parts that are relevant to their fields of expertise. A first simple change might be to include this process in the Rules, so that it becomes the norm for all omnibus bills.
Going one step further, a second option would be to make the process automatic for large or complex bills, rather than optional. With such a change, the National Finance Committee would be able to study the subject matter of budget implementation bills in collaboration with other committees, but without waiting for an order of reference from the Senate.
A third option, and a variation on this idea, would be to develop a way for different parts of an omnibus bill to be referred to different committees after second reading. This would allow the committees to study the elements of the bill relevant to their fields in detail and to actually propose their own amendments.
Even without such changes, senators have powerful tools available. Most dramatically, the Senate can defeat a bill, even one proposed by a minister, without bringing about the fall of the government. We have even done so with a budget implementation bill in the past. Senators also have the option, which they regularly exercise, of proposing amendments to bills in committee and at third reading.
The rarely-used possibility of dividing a bill is another tool available to the Senate, if there is a concern that a bill is too large or complex. Within our current practices, a committee cannot propose dividing a bill without special authority from the Senate. The Rules could, however, be amended to give a committee dealing with an omnibus bill the power to propose division on its own initiative, if it decides either that this could assist the Senate's study of the bill or that there is no common theme between the different parts of the bill. Such a course of action should, of course, only be taken after the sponsor has had ample opportunity to provide reasons against dividing the bill or to explain the common theme linking its different parts together.
These are only some ideas. There are no doubt other ways that we can deal with any concerns that may exist in relation to omnibus bills. However, within the current framework of the Rules of the Senate and practices such bills are acceptable and can proceed through the Senate in the same way as any other bill. Nothing should prevent the Senate, perhaps after study by the Rules Committee, from reconsidering how it deals with omnibus bills if it so wishes. Any changes are, however, for the chamber itself to decide, and not for the Speaker to impose.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills — Second Reading
Second reading of Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park.
The Honourable Senator Enverga moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ngo, that the bill be read the second time.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Fraser, for the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson, 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 McIntyre, seconded by the Honourable Senator McInnis, for the second reading of Bill C-47, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
The bill was then read the second time.
The Honourable Senator McIntyre moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Demers, that the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Reports of Committees — Other
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Inquiries
Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
Other
Order No. 2 was called and postponed until the next sitting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Senate Public Bills — Second Reading
Orders No. 1 to 5 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Commons Public Bills — Second Reading
Orders No. 1 to 3 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Reports of Committees — Other
Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
Motions
Orders No. 60, 66, 47, 74, 79, 62, 73, 8, 55 and 9 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cowan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson:
That a Special Committee on Equalization and Fiscal Federalism be appointed to consider whether the current formulae for equalization and other related federal transfers affect the ability of Canadians living in all regions of the country to access a basic standard of public services without facing significantly different levels of taxation.
That the committee be composed of nine members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection and that four members constitute a quorum;
That, the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses; and to publish such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That, notwithstanding rule 12-18(2)(b)(i), the committee have power to sit from Monday to Friday, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week; and
That the committee be empowered to report from time to time and to submit its final report no later than March 31, 2015.
The Honourable Senator Cordy moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif, that further debate on the motion be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Inquiries
Orders No. 14, 42, 43, 47, 29 and 20 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to November 11, known to all as Remembrance Day, of this, the centennial year of the July 28 start of hostilities in the 1914-1918 Great War, which day is given to the national and collective mourning of Canadians, on which we remember and honour the many who served and who fell in the service of God, King and Country, and, whose incalculable sacrifice of their lives, we honour in our simultaneous yet individual, personal acts of prayer and remembrance, wherein we pause and bow our heads together in sacred unity, at the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, for the many who gave themselves, and:
To those who served in World War I, with its stupendous sacrifices, its massive mobilisation and fielding of millions of men, on all sides, and to its enormous casualties and losses of life, and, to our young country's noble contribution to this far away overseas War, of 620,000 men, being ten percent of Canada's then population, and, to our 60,661 fallen, being ten percent of those serving, and, to Canada's Prime Minister, the Conservative, Robert Borden's success in earning Canada's representation at the 1919 Allies' Paris Peace Conference, and, to his and his Ministers' presence there, and, to the respect he earned for Canadian contribution to the war, and for Canada's control of its foreign affairs, wars and peace, and, to the changing relations between the Allied leaders, and, to their changing politics at home, and, to Canadians at home and abroad, particularly the Canadian-born British Prime Minister, Andrew Bonar Law and the Canadian Max Aitken, known as Lord Beaverbrook, both of whom were active in British politics in these events, and who endeavoured, in 1922, to avoid a new war at Chanak, in the Turkish Dardanelles.
After debate,
The Honourable Senator Cools moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, that further debate on the inquiry be adjourned until the next sitting.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
° ° °
Orders No. 36, 27, 33, 45, 34, 15, 17, 26, 18, 19, 21, 28, 13 and 16 were called and postponed until the next sitting.
° ° °
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to November 11, known to all as Remembrance Day, of this, the centennial year of the July 28 start of hostilities in the 1914-1918 Great War, which day is given to the national and collective mourning of Canadians, on which we remember and honour the many who served and who fell in the service of God, King and Country, and, whose incalculable sacrifice of their lives, we honour in our simultaneous yet individual, personal acts of prayer and remembrance, wherein we pause and bow our heads together in sacred unity, at the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, for the many who gave themselves, and:
To Canadian and British peace of mind, freed from the fear and sorrow of the possible sacrifice of their beloved sons to war, so soon again, and, to their ``blessed relief,'' and, to Canadian unanimity in support of their Prime Minister Mackenzie King's stand against war at Chanak, and, to Canadian events, and, to Canadians such as John Wesley Dafoe, the great journalist-editor of the Manitoba Free Press, later the Winnipeg Free Press, who had attended the 1919 Allies' Paris Peace Conference with Prime Minister Robert Borden's Canadian delegation, and, who had supported Canada's position on Chanak, and, who had strenuously opposed Prime Minister Lloyd George's demands to the Dominions and Canada to send troops there, and, to John Dafoe's brilliant account of Canadians and the Canadian Government's desire to live without war against people who had done them no harm, and, to his historic Manitoba Free Press article, titled, The Rise of the Commonwealth Dominion Responsibility For External Affairs, and, to Canada's influence on British politics and the other Dominions, and, to Canada's firm, principled, and vindicated position not to send Canadian troops to the Dardanelles, at Chanak, and, to Canadian-born British Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law's negotiated and lasting peace with Turkey, in the Treaty of Lausanne, that is still in force, and, to the profound truth that the greatest act of peace is simply to make no unnecessary war, and, to make absolutely no war, for the purpose, that is the pursuit of ambition.
The Honourable Senator Martin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator MacDonald, that further debate on the inquiry 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 14-1(7):
Report on Official Languages for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, pursuant to the Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.), s. 44.—Sessional Paper No. 2/41-1029.
Report on the Statutes Repeal Act for the year 2015, pursuant to the Act, S.C. 2008, c. 20, s. 2.—Sessional Paper No. 2/41-1030.
Report of the Blue Water Bridge Authority, together with the Auditor General's Report, for the year 2014, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1). —Sessional Paper No. 2/41-1031.
Summary of the Corporate Plan for 2014-2015 to 2018-2019 of Marine Atlantic Inc., pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 125(4).—Sessional Paper No. 2/41-1032.
ADJOURNMENT
The Honourable Senator Martin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator MacDonald:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
(Accordingly, at 4:06 p.m. the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.)
Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 12-5
Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples
The Honourable Senator Tannas replaced the Honourable Senator Andreychuk (February 3, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Watt replaced the Honourable Senator Dyck (February 2, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Andreychuk replaced the Honourable Senator Tannas (February 2, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Moore replaced the Honourable Senator Fraser (January 29, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Dyck replaced the Honourable Senator Campbell (January 29, 2015).
Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
The Honourable Senator Plett replaced the Honourable Senator Beyak (February 3, 2015).
Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
The Honourable Senator Verner, P.C., replaced the Honourable Senator Black (February 2, 2015).
Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
The Honourable Senator Beyak replaced the Honourable Senator McInnis (February 3, 2015).
The Honourable Senator McIntyre replaced the Honourable Senator Poirier (February 3, 2015).
Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The Honourable Senator Cordy was added to the membership (January 29, 2015).
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The Honourable Senator Munson replaced the Honourable Senator Rivest (January 30, 2015).
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
The Honourable Senator Maltais replaced the Honourable Senator Mockler (February 3, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Boisvenu replaced the Honourable Senator Bellemare (February 3, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Wallace replaced the Honourable Senator Wells (January 29, 2015).
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
The Honourable Senator Neufeld replaced the Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen (February 3, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Ngo replaced the Honourable Senator Wells (February 3, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Wells replaced the Honourable Senator Ngo (January 30, 2015).
Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages
The Honourable Senator Poirier replaced the Honourable Senator Beyak (February 3, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Beyak replaced the Honourable Senator Poirier (February 2, 2015).
Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications
The Honourable Senator Verner, P.C., replaced the Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis (February 3, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Greene replaced the Honourable Senator Oh (February 3, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis replaced the Honourable Senator Verner, P.C. (February 2, 2015).
The Honourable Senator Oh replaced the Honourable Senator Greene (February 2, 2015).