The Members convened were:

The Honourable Senators

AndreychukAtaullahjanBakerBattersBellemareBeyakBlackBoisvenuCampbellCarignanCoolsCordyDagenaisDayDowneDoyleDuffyDyckEatonEggletonEnvergaFraserFrumFureyGagnéGreeneHarderHubleyJafferJoyalKennyLangLankinMacDonaldMaltaisManningMarshallMartinMcCoyMcIntyreMercerMerchantMeredithMitchellMocklerMooreMunsonNancy RuthNeufeldNgoOgilvieOhOmidvarPattersonPetitclercPlettPratteRaineRinguetteRuncimanSeidmanSibbestonSinclairSmithStewart OlsenTannasTardifTkachukUngerWallaceWallinWattWellsWhite

The Members in attendance to business were:

The Honourable Senators

AndreychukAtaullahjanBakerBattersBellemareBeyakBlackBoisvenuCampbellCarignanCoolsCordyDagenaisDayDowneDoyleDuffyDyckEatonEggletonEnvergaFraserFrumFureyGagnéGreeneHarderHubleyJaffer*JohnsonJoyalKennyLangLankinMacDonaldMaltaisManningMarshallMartin*MassicotteMcCoyMcIntyreMercerMerchantMeredithMitchellMocklerMooreMunsonNancy RuthNeufeldNgoOgilvieOhOmidvarPattersonPetitclercPlettPratteRaineRinguetteRuncimanSeidmanSibbestonSinclairSmithStewart OlsenTannasTardifTkachukUngerWallaceWallinWattWellsWhite

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.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Tabling of Documents

With leave of the Senate,

The Honourable the Speaker tabled the following:

Report of the Parliamentary Delegation of the Senate, led by the Speaker of the Senate, that travelled to the People’s Republic of China, from January 4 to 8, 2016.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-392.

o o o

The Honourable the Speaker tabled the following:

Reports of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, 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. 1/42-393.

Presenting or Tabling Reports from Committees

The Honourable Senator Dyck, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, tabled the third report (interim) of the committee, entitled: Border Crossing Issues and the Jay Treaty.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-394S.

Ordered, That the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Lang presented the following:

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has the honour to present its

SIXTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Canada Border Services Agency Act (Inspector General of the Canada Border Services Agency) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, has, in obedience to the order of reference of April 14, 2016, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1.Clause 2, pages 1 to 11:

(a)On page 3, replace lines 22 to 44 with the following:

“15.5 The mandate of the Inspector General is to consider any complaint made under subsection 15.6(1).”;

(b)on page 4,

(i) delete lines 1 to 10, and

(ii)replace lines 11 to 13 with the following:

“15.6 (1) Any person who claims to be aggrieved by any act or thing done by the Agency may make a complaint to the Inspector General and, subject to this”;

(c)on page 7, replace line 39 with the following:

“(2) Subject to subsection (3), the”;

(d)on page 8, delete lines 32 to 37;

(e)on page 9,

(i) delete lines 1 to 15, and

(ii) add the following after line 39:

“15.191 The Inspector General’s decisions in respect of a complaint or an investigation under this Act, and the findings and recommendations contained in the Inspector General’s report referred to in subsection 15.11(1), are final and are not subject to appeal or to review by any court.”;

(f) on page 10,

(i) replace line 4 with the following:

“$5,000.”, and

(ii) delete lines 5 to 42;

(g) on page 11, delete lines 1 to 43; and

(h) make any necessary changes to the numbering of the proposed sections contained in clause 2 and to all cross-references thereto.

Respectfully submitted,

The Honourable Senator Lang moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Neufeld, that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills

The Honourable Senator Runciman introduced Bill S-227, An Act to amend the Customs Act (reporting requirements).

The bill was read the first time.

The Honourable Senator Runciman 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.

Tabling of Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations

The Honourable Senator Andreychuk tabled the following:

Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Bilaterial Mission to the Republic of Namibia and the Republic of South Africa, held in Windhoek, Namibia and Cape Town, South Africa, from February 28 to March 5, 2016.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-395.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Maltais tabled the following:

Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) respecting its participation at the 15th Winter Meeting of the OSCE PA, held in Vienna, Austria, on February 25 and 26, 2016.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-396.

Question Period

The Senate proceeded to Question Period.

Delayed Answers

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., tabled the following:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on February 3, 2016 by the Honourable Senator Cowan, concerning shipbuilding and the coast guard.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-397S.

Revised response to the oral question asked by the Honourable Senator McInnis on February 3, 2016, concerning the salmon fishery.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-398S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 14, 2016 by the Honourable Senator Runciman concerning the selection process for judges.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-399S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 14, 2016 by the Honourable Senator Meredith, concerning airline competition.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-400S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 21, 2016 by the Honourable Senator Dagenais, concerning the allotment of time on C-10.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-401S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 21, 2016 by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning the allotment of time on C-10.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-402S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 21, 2016 by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning the allotment of time on C-10.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-403S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 21, 2016 by the Honourable Senator Lankin concerning the allocation of resources.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-404S.

Response to the oral question asked by the Honourable Senator Martin on April 21, 2016, concerning Pacific NorthWest LNG Project (liquefied natural gas).—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-405S.

Response to the oral question asked by the Honourable Senator Martin on April 21, 2016, concerning Pacific NorthWest LNG Project (liquefied natural gas).—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-406S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 4, 2016 by the Honourable Senator Munson concerning the establishment of a national commission on children and youth.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-407S.

Orders of the Day

Government Business

Bills – Third Reading

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, for the third reading of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on the following vote:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

BakerBellemareCampbellCoolsCordyDayDuffyDyckEggletonFraserGagnéHarderHubleyJafferJoyalKennyLankinMcCoyMercerMerchantMeredithMitchellMooreMunsonOmidvarPetitclercPratteRinguetteSibbestonSinclairTardifWallaceWallinWatt—34

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

BattersBoisvenuCarignanDagenaisDoyleEatonEnvergaMaltaisMarshallMartinNeufeldOgilviePlettRaineStewart OlsenTkachukWells—17

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

AndreychukAtaullahjanBeyakBlackGreeneLangMacDonaldMcIntyreMocklerNancy RuthNgoOhPattersonRuncimanSeidmanSmithWhite—17

Accordingly, Bill C-15 was read a 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, without amendment.

o o o

Third reading of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

The Honourable Senator Pratte moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Sibbeston, that the bill be read for a third time.

After debate,

In amendment, the Honourable Senator Mercer moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dyck:

That Bill C-10 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended

(a)in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing lines 16 to 20 with the following:

“Corporation shall maintain, in each of those provinces, the type and volume of all of those activities, as well as the level of employment in all of those activities, as they were at the coming into force of this subsection.”; and

(b)in clause 3,

(i) on page 3,

(A)by replacing lines 4 to 8 with the following:

“Corporation shall maintain, in each of those provinces, the type and volume of all of those activities, as well as the level of employment in all of those activities, as they were at the coming into force of this subsection.”,

(B)by replacing lines 20 to 24 with the following:

“Corporation shall maintain, in each of those provinces, the type and volume of all of those activities, as well as the level of employment in all of those activities, as they were at the coming into force of this subsection.”, and

(C) by replacing lines 39 and 40 with the following:

“Corporation shall maintain, in each of those provinces, the type and volume of all of those activities, as well as the level of employment in all of those activities, as they were at the coming into force of this subsection.”, and

(ii) on page 4, by deleting lines 1 to 3.

The question being put on the motion in amendment, it was negatived, on division.

The question was put on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pratte, seconded by the Honourable Senator Sibbeston, for the third reading of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, it was adopted, on division.

The bill was then read the third time and passed, on division.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House that the Senate has passed this bill, without amendment.

SPEAKER'S RULING

I am prepared to deal with the question of privilege raised by Senator Ringuette on June 16, respecting her “political” affiliation as it appears on the Senate’s website. Her complaint is that she is now shown as “non affiliated,” rather than “independent,” as was previously the case. This change, authorized by the Internal Economy Committee in May, was made without consultation with the affected senators.

Senator Ringuette only became aware of the change fortuitously. She had specifically chosen an “independent” designation earlier this year, and objected to the decision of Internal Economy made without her input, a concern that Senator Wallace shared. Senator Ringuette also noted how this designation is not consistent with other documents and publications produced by the Senate. Subsequently, several other senators expressed support for Senator Ringuette’s complaint, although not all were convinced that the issue constituted a breach of privilege.

The chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration, Senator Housakos, provided useful background. He indicated that the changes made by the committee were “in no way, shape or form … designed to offend or to denigrate anybody.” He apologized if some senators had been hurt by the committee’s action. He explained that the committee had acted in good faith and had sought to balance the needs of all senators. This included the many senators who are members of recognized parties. As Senator Housakos explained, they feel no less independent than their colleagues who are not members of a party caucus. The committee had concluded that “non affiliated” more accurately captured the current situation than “independent.”

Senator Ringuette raised this question of privilege under the provisions of rule 13-4(a), which allow a senator to by-pass the normal requirements for written and oral notices.

Because the senator raised this complaint as a question of privilege, I am obliged, as Speaker, to assess its merits on the basis of criteria provided in the Rules of the Senate to determine if on its face, prima facie, it may involve a violation of privilege, the fundamental rights and immunities of Parliament and its members needed to carry out the work we do here.

There are four criteria as stated in rule 13-2(1). The first is that the matter must “be raised at the earliest opportunity.” Normally, any type of delay would mean that the senator raising the question of privilege would not have access to the “priority process.” As already noted, however, Senator Ringuette explained that she acted as expeditiously as possible once she became aware of the concern. I am satisfied that this criterion has been met.

The second and third criteria are that the matter must “directly concern the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees or any Senator” and must “be raised to correct a grave and serious breach.” It is certainly true that the concern raised by Senator Ringuette affects a number of senators. All the independent senators have had their affiliation changed. No less than 23 senators are involved, more than a quarter of the current Senate. This is troubling, and does not reflect the idea, set out in the ruling of May 19, that senators should, within reasonable limits, be allowed latitude in how they designate themselves. Does this, however, rise to the level of a breach of privilege? The affected senators can sit in the Senate, they can take part in debate, they can vote, and they can — subject to the Rules — serve on committees and participate in their work. None of these essential rights has been impaired, and so it is unclear how the senators’ privileges, as defined in our Rules, have been placed at risk.

The final criterion to assess the merits of a question of privilege is that it must seek a genuine remedy for which no other parliamentary process is reasonably available. In my view, it would not be difficult for Senator Ringuette to move a motion to provide direction as to how the subject of senators’ designation should be dealt with or to direct that the Internal Economy Committee or the Rules Committee study and report on the issue. Any subsequent decision of the Senate would provide clear guidance as to how this subject should be managed in the future. Because reasonable alternatives are available, it is clear that this fourth criterion has not been satisfied.

As I have already noted, Senator Ringuette has raised an issue of direct interest to a large number of senators. Her complaint suggests that there was inadequate consultation and agreement before the decision was taken to change the designation of the independent senators on the Senate website and in certain Senate administrative documents. This decision also appears to be in conflict with the long established practice of allowing individual senators considerable latitude in how they designate themselves or their affiliations. Nonetheless, the claim that this is a question of privilege does not satisfy all the criteria of rule 13-2(1). I must rule therefore that a prima facie question of privilege has not been established.

This ruling does not really resolve the difficulty raised by Senator Ringuette nor does it fully discharge my responsibilities as Speaker. More needs to be said.

As we know, the Senate is going through some significant changes. It has survived a difficult period of intense scrutiny that to many of us seemed excessive and even unfair. Nonetheless, the Senate worked past this and learned some important lessons along the way. It is doing a lot more to demonstrate its accountability to the public. Much of this is due to the great work of Internal Economy and its current chair and deputy chair, Senators Housakos and Cordy. The Senate is also improving its communications and this is allowing the Senate to publicize the important work it does more effectively.

At the same time, the membership of the Senate is changing. It now includes more senators than ever who prefer not to be part of a political group. There is every indication that this reality will only become more evident in the coming months as current and future vacancies are filled. Eventually, I suspect this will lead to adjustments in the traditional way the Senate conducts its business that is now based on a model that operates through a government and an opposition supported by party caucuses.

This significant shift from party allegiance seems to be creating tensions as the new paradigm becomes more established. The dispute about “independent” and “non affiliated” seems to be part of that tension. In the past, there was no trouble in identifying some senators as independents. It was easily accepted because there were relatively few of them. Now, however, there is the real prospect that they may soon be the majority. This seems to have aroused a kind of resentment hinted at in one rebuttal comment to Senator Ringuette’s claim to a question of privilege. In a remark that is probably shared by more than a few senators, it was suggested that party allegiance need not impede the independence of a senator. This, in turn, seems to have been the justification to use the term “non affiliated” rather than “independent.” While I can appreciate this point of view, I also understand the objection as to the way it was used to implement certain decisions by Internal Economy without sufficient consultation among the affected independent senators.

The decision of Internal to use the term “non affiliated” was made at a public meeting on May 5 with respect to the proactive disclosure of senators’ expenses which will be posted to the Senate website in the coming months. As I understand it, directions were subsequently given to officers in administration to apply the term throughout the website in order to insure consistency. This direction had an impact on numerous documents currently on the website. This is how Senator Ringuette and other senators discovered that they are now designated “non affiliated” rather than “independent.” I have since learned that many of these senators share Senator Ringuette’s objection to this. Hence the tension.

In reviewing the mandate of Internal Economy which is to be responsible for the financial and administrative matters concerning the internal administration of the Senate, it is not clear to me that it has the authority to determine and set the designation of senators as “non affiliated.” Certainly, as has been noted, it is inconsistent with long established practice which has allowed senators themselves to choose their designation. Moreover, it is unlikely that Internal acting alone would be able to achieve total consistency since it does not have control over Senate parliamentary publications such as the Debates and the Journals; it can only order the structure or layout of the Senate’s administrative documents or reports that fall under its jurisdiction. With respect to the parliamentary publications and information supplied by the Library of Parliament, senators can continue to identify themselves according to their declared preference. For example, in the printed edition of the Debates for June 1, 2016, some appendices list the senators as Conservatives, Liberals or Independents; none are identified as “non affiliated.” Presumably the same will be true on the websites of individual senators.

So the question arises, honourable senators: where do we go from here? Internal has taken a decision that has prompted objections from many senators who do not want to be described or designated as “non affiliated.” This is not a good situation and it is contrary to our usual and long-standing practice. Nor is it helpful to the maintenance of good relations among senators. This is what challenges us now and it is up to the Senate itself to resolve. However, I am concerned about the potential impact of any on-going tension among senators and how it could damage the conduct of business in the Chamber and in committees. What I would recommend for the consideration of the Senate is that this issue of the designation “independent” versus “non affiliated” be referred to the Rules Committee as quickly as possible. The Rules Committee should be able to conduct a thorough examination of the subject, canvassing the views of senators, noting past practice, and soliciting information from other jurisdictions. In the meantime, until a decision is made by the Rules Committee, Internal may wish to consider suspending its decision to use the term “non affiliated” for documents and records that are under its purview with respect to senators who clearly state a preference for the use of independent.

Bills – Second Reading

Orders No. 1 and 2 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Reports of Committees – Other

Orders No. 1 to 3 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Motions

Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.

Inquiries

Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.

Other Business

Senate Public Bills – Reports of Committees

Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.

Senate Public Bills – Second Reading

Orders No. 1 to 21 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Commons Public Bills – Second Reading

Order No. 1 was called and postponed until the next sitting.

Reports of Committees – Other

Consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled: Report on Aquaculture, tabled in the Senate on June 21, 2016.

The Honourable Senator Hubley moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore:

That the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, tabled in the Senate on June 21, 2016, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

Orders No. 2 and 3 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

o o o

Consideration of the third report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, entitled: Border Crossing Issues and the Jay Treaty, tabled in the Senate on June 22, 2016.

After debate,

The Honourable Senator Dyck moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mercer:

That the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, tabled on Wednesday, June 22, 2016, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Motions

Orders No. 92, 31, 7, 79, 73, 9, 51, 69, 96, 60, 89 and 43 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

Inquiries

Orders No. 11, 2, 1, 3, 12, 5 and 8 were called and postponed until the next sitting.

---

At 6:04 p.m., pursuant to rule 16-1(8), the sitting was suspended to await the announcement of Royal Assent, to reassemble at the call of the Chair with a five minute bell.

At 6:42 p.m., the sitting resumed.

WRITTEN DECLARATION OF ROYAL ASSENT

At 6:43 p.m., the Honourable the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

June 22^nd, 2016

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 22nd day of June, 2016, at 6:09 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Schedule

Bills Assented To

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

An Act to amend the Copyright Act (access to copyrighted works or other subject-matter for persons with perceptual disabilities) (Bill C-11, Chapter 4, 2016)

An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017 (Bill C-19, Chapter 5, 2016)

An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017 (Bill C-20, Chapter 6, 2016)

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures (Bill C-15, Chapter 7, 2016)

An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures (Bill C-10, Chapter 8, 2016)

---

With leave of the Senate,

The Honourable Senator Bellemare moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

That, when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2 p.m.

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

ADJOURNMENT

The Honourable Senator Bellemare moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

(Accordingly, at 6:45 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, September 27, 2016, at 2 p.m.)

---

Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 12-5

Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence

The Honourable Senator Kenny replaced the Honourable Senator Day (June 22, 2016).

The Honourable Senator Day replaced the Honourable Senator Kenny (June 22, 2016).