|
|
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Rule 27(3) states:
Unless previously ordered, any item under "Other Business", "Inquiries" and "Motions" that has not been proceeded with during fifteen sittings shall be dropped from the Order Paper.
Consequently, the number appearing in parenthesis indicates the number of sittings since the item was last proceeded with.
No. 1. (five)
March 16, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bolduc, for the second reading of Bill S-26, An Act respecting the declaration of royal assent by the Governor General in the Queen's name to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament.-(Honourable Senator Prud'homme, P.C.).
No. 2. (twelve)
May 5, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rossiter, for the second reading of Bill S-28, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (hours of polling in Saskatchewan).-(Honourable Senator Carstairs).
No. 3. (twelve)
April 13, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Grimard, for the second reading of Bill S-27, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (hours of polling at by-elections).-(Honourable Senator Carstairs).
No. 4. (one)
September 9, 1999-Second reading of Bill S-31, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate).-(Honourable Senator Grafstein ).
No. 1.
September 14, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Watt, for the second reading of Bill C-251, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences).-(Honourable Senator Cools).
Nil
No. 1. (one)
September 9, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Maheu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Finnerty, for the adoption of the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders (Question of Privilege of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C.), presented in the Senate on June 16, 1999.-(Honourable Senator Murray, P.C.).
No. 2. (one)
June 7, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Maheu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick, for the adoption of the Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders (restructuring of Senate committees) presented in the Senate on June 2, 1999,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Lawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Doody, that the Report be not now adopted, but that it be amended by striking out proposed Rule 85. (2.2)(a) and substituting therefor the following:
"(2.2)(a) The Committee of Selection may make a recommendation to the Senate that two additional members be added to any standing committee."-(Honourable Senator DeWare).
No. 3. (two)
June 10, 1999-Resuming debate on the consideration of the Report of the Subcommittee on Communications of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications entitled: "Wired to Win! Canada's Positioning Within The World's Technological Revolution", deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on May 28, 1999.-(Honourable Senator Johnson).
No. 4. (three)
June 17, 1999-Consideration of the Twenty-second Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (study on social cohesion), tabled in the Senate on June 17, 1999.-(Honourable Senator Murray, P.C.).
No. 5. (five)
March 11, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Maheu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, for the adoption of the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders (independent Senators) presented in the Senate on March 10, 1999.-(Honourable Senator Kinsella).
No. 6. (seven)
February 16, 1999-Resuming debate on the consideration of the Sixteenth Report (Interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce entitled: "The Governance Practices of Institutional Investors", tabled in the Senate on November 19, 1998.-(Honourable Senator Di Nino).
No. 34. (inquiry)
June 17, 1998-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simard calling the attention of the Senate to the current situation with regard to the application of the Official Languages Act, its progressive deterioration, the abdication of responsibility by a succession of governments over the past ten years and the loss of access to services in French for francophones outside Quebec.-(Honourable Senator Finestone).
No. 159. (motion)
September 14, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Roche, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wilson:
That the Senate recommends that the Government of Canada urge the nuclear weapons states plus India, Pakistan and Israel to take all of their nuclear forces off alert status as soon as possible.-(Honourable Senator Carstairs ).
No. 81. (one) (inquiry)
June 3, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Poy calling the attention of the Senate to the Dragon Boat Festival.-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk).
No. 86. (one) (inquiry)
September 9, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Poy calling the attention of the Senate to the plight of Chinese migrants on the B.C. coast.-(Honourable Senator Carney, P.C.).
No. 46. (two) (inquiry)
November 24, 1998-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Kinsella calling the attention of the Senate to the Responses to the Supplementary Questions emitted by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on Canada's Third Report on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk).
No. 1. (two) (motion)
October 2, 1997-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Berntson:
That a Special Committee of the Senate be appointed to examine and report on the manner in which the chain of command of the Canadian Forces both in-theatre and at National Defence Headquarters, responded to the operational, disciplinary, decision-making and administrative problems encountered during the Somalia deployment to the extent that these matters have not been examined by the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia;
That the Committee in examining these issues may call witnesses from whom it believes it may obtain evidence relevant to these matters including but not limited to:
1. former Ministers of National Defence;
2. the then Deputy Minister of National Defence;
3. the then Acting Chief of Staff of the Minister of National Defence;
4. the then special advisor to the Minister of National Defence (M. Campbell);
5. the then special advisor to the Minister of National Defence (J. Dixon);
6. the persons occupying the position of Judge Advocate General during the relevant period;
7. the then Deputy Judge Advocate General (litigation); and
8. the then Chief of Defence Staff and Deputy Chief of Defence Staff.
That seven Senators, nominated by the Committee of Selection act as members of the Special Committee, and that three members constitute a quorum;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have power to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee have the power to engage the services of such counsel and other professional, technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purposes of its examination;
That the political parties represented on the Special Committee be granted allocations for expert assistance with the work of the Committee;
That it be empowered to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;
That the Committee submit its report not later than one year from the date of it being constituted, provided that if the Senate is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the Senate; and
That the Special Committee include in its report, its findings and recommendations regarding the structure, functioning and operational effectiveness of National Defence Headquarters, the relationship between the military and civilian components of NDHQ, and the relationship among the Deputy Minister of Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff and the Minister of National Defence,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Forrestall, seconded by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin, that the motion be amended by adding in paragraph 2 the following:
"9. the present Minister of National Defence.".-(Honourable Senator Atkins).
No. 74. (three) (inquiry)
June 10, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Grafstein calling the attention of the Senate to the question of international law: Canada and the NATO action in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.-(Honourable Senator Kinsella).
No. 76. (four) (inquiry)
June 10, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cohen calling the attention of the Senate to a report by the National Council of Welfare entitled, Preschool Children: Promises to Keep.-(Honourable Senator Losier-Cool).
No. 78. (four) (inquiry)
May 11, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Carstairs calling the attention of the Senate to the status of palliative care in Canada, in recognition of National Palliative Care Week.-(Honourable Senator DeWare ).
No. 73. (four) (inquiry)
April 20, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Keon calling the attention of the Senate to the present state of the Canadian health care system.-(Honourable Senator Carstairs).
No. 118. (four) (motion)
February 11, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Atkins:
That there be laid before this House all documents and records concerning the possible privatization of DEVCO, including:
(a) studies, analyses, reports and other policy initiatives prepared by or for the government;
(b) documents and records that disclose all consultants who have worked on the subject and the terms of reference of the contract for each, its value and whether or not it was tendered;
(c) briefing materials for Ministers, their officials, advisors, consultants and others;
(d) minutes of departmental, inter-departmental and other meetings; and
(e) exchanges between the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Finance, the Treasury Board, the Privy Council Office and the Office of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.-(Honourable Senator Kinsella).
No. 63. (four) (inquiry)
March 4, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools calling the attention of the Senate:
(a) to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the sexual assault case Her Majesty the Queen v. Steve Brian Ewanchuk, delivered February 25, 1999, which judgment reversed the Alberta Court of Appeal's judgment upholding the trial court's acquittal;
(b) to the intervenors in this case, being the Attorney General of Canada, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Disabled Women's Network Canada and Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton;
(c) to the Supreme Court of Canada's substitution of a conviction for the acquittals of two Alberta courts;
(d) to the lengthy concurring reasons for judgment by Supreme Court of Canada Madame Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, which reasons condemn the decision-making of Mr. Justice John Wesley McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the decision of the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal;
(e) to Mr. Justice John Wesley McClung's letter published in the National Post on February 26, 1999, reacting to Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dubé's statements about him contained in her concurring reasons for judgement;
(f) to the nation-wide, extensive commentary and public discussion on the matter; and
(g) to the issues of judicial activism and judicial independence in Canada today.-(Honourable Senator Maheu).
No. 47. (five) (inquiry)
December 8, 1998-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Roche calling the attention of the Senate to the election of Canada to the United Nations' Security Council for 1999-2000, and Canada's role in contributing to peace, global security and human rights in the world on the eve of the new millennium.-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk).
No. 145. (six) (motion)
June 14, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Nolin, seconded by the Honourable Senator LeBreton:
That a Special Committee of the Senate be appointed to reassess Canada's anti-drug legislation and policies, to carry out a broad consultation of the Canadian public to determine the specifics needs of various regions of the country, where social problems associated with the trafficking and use of illegal drugs is more in evidence, to develop proposals to disseminate information about Canada's anti-drug policy and, finally, to make recommendations for of an anti-drug strategy developed by and for Canadians under which all levels of government to work closely together to reduce the harm associated with the use of illegal drugs.
That, without being limited in its mandate by the following, the Committee be authorized to:
- review the federal government's policy to reduce the use of illegal drugs in Canada, its effectiveness, and the extent to which it is fairly enforced;
- develop a national harm reduction policy in order to lessen the negative impact of illegal drug use in Canada, and make recommendations regarding the enforcement of this policy, specifically the possibility of focusing on use and abuse of drugs as a social and health problem;
- study harm reduction models adopted by other countries (treatment programs and parallel programs aimed at illegal drug users) and determine if there is a need to implement them wholly or partially in Canada;
- examine Canada's international role and obligations under United Nations conventions on narcotics and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to determine whether these conventions authorize it to take action other than laying criminal charges;
- explore the effects of cannabis on health and examine the issue of whether decriminalizing cannabis would lead to increased use and abuse in the short and long term.
- examine the possibility of the government using its regulatory power under the Contraventions Act as an additional means of implementing a harm reduction policy, as is commonly done in certain European countries;
- examine any other issue respecting Canada's anti-drug policy that the Committee considers appropriate to the completion of its mandate.
That the Special Committee be composed of eight Senators and that four members constitute a quorum;
That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, to report from time to time and to print such papers, briefs and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the briefs received and testimony heard during consideration of Bill C-8, an Act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances, by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during the Second Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the Committee have the power to authorize television, radio and electronic broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee be granted leave to sit when the Senate has been adjourned pursuant to subsection 95 (2) of Senate rules;
That the Committee submit its final report not later than two years from the date of it being constituted; and
That the Committee be empowered to continue to exist after the date on which it is to conclude its work in order to inform members of the Senate and the House of Commons, the Canadian public and any other person or association interested in its work, to disseminate the Committee's conclusions and recommendations by means of press releases, press conferences, information sessions or any other activity members of the Committee deem appropriate at a particular time.-(Honourable Senator Kenny).
No. 65. (seven) (inquiry)
March 11, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Grafstein calling the attention of the Senate to the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association (OSCE) Delegation to the Standing Committee Meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE PA), held in Vienna, Austria, from January 14 to 15, 1999 and the situation in Kosovo.-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk).
No. 79. (eight) (inquiry)
June 8, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Pearson calling the attention of the Senate to the Government response to the Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access entitled: For the Sake of the Children.-(Honourable Senator Cohen).
No. 82. (eight) (inquiry)
June 8, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Oliver calling the attention of the Senate to methods by which taxpayers in Canada may be better protected from abusive and illegal collection tactics utilized by Revenue Canada, its agents and employees, by reviewing the results of a similar study of the IRS.-(Honourable Senator Bolduc).
No. 143. (eight) (motion)
June 8, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare:
That the Senate of Canada uphold its unique, historical, constitutional and parliamentary interest and role in divorce and in granting bills of divorce, as demonstrated by the Senate's former Standing Committee on Divorce, and that the Senate continue to assert its special role and interest in the condition of the children of divorce;
That the Senate upholds that the Senate has vigorously renewed this interest by its actions upholding the entitlements of children of divorce to the financial support of both parents according to respective abilities, and by the Senate's actions to amend Bill C-41, an Act to Amend the Divorce Act and other related Acts, amended by the Senate on February 13, 1997, concurred in by the House of Commons on February 14, with Royal Assent on February 19, 1997;
That the Senate upholds that a corollary to the Senate's passage of Bill C-41 in February 1997 was the will, agreement, and intention to constitute a joint committee of the Senate with the House of Commons to examine the previously unstudied and neglected question of the condition and functioning of children, within the hitherto established regime of custody and access in divorce;
That the Senate affirms that this Special Joint Parliamentary Committee of the Senate and House of Commons was constituted by a joint resolution, moved in the Senate on October 9,1997 and adopted in the Senate on October 28, 1997, and moved in the House of Commons on November 5, 1997 and adopted in the House of Commons on November 18, 1997;
That the Senate affirms that this Special Joint Parliamentary Senate-Commons Committee on Child Custody and Access in divorce Traveled across Canada, held numerous sittings, heard testimony from over 520 witnesses and reported to the Senate on December 9, 1998 and to the House of Commons on December 10, 1998 by its Report, For the Sake of the Children;
That the Senate affirms that this Special Joint Parliamentary Senate-Commons Committee concluded that upon divorce, the children of divorce and their parents are entitled to a close and continuous relationship with one another, and, consequently, recommended that the Divorce Act be amended by Parliament to express this joint nature of parenting by inserting the legal concept "shared parenting" in the Divorce Act, and also by including in the Divorce Act's definition of the "best interests of the child", the importance of the meaningful involvement of both parents in the lives of the children of divorce;
That the Senate affirms that on May 10, 1999, six months after the Committee's Report to both Houses of Parliament, more than two years after the passage of Bill C-41 in February 1997, the Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, gave her ministerial response to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations in her paper entitled Government of Canada's Response to the Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access: Strategy for Reform; having fully accepted the Committee's major recommendations, and having accepted that the divorce law regime currently in force is wanting and needing correction, she then proposed a three-year delay to May 1, 2002 for her legislative action to correct the obviously wanting divorce law regime;
That the Senate asserts that the recommendations of a committee of Parliament, the Highest Court of the Land, the Grand Inquest of the Nation, is the highest recommendation of the land, and that such advice and counsel of Parliament is the most complete, representative, constitutional, and the most efficient form of advice a government can heed; and that the Senate asserts that the responsible Minister and the Ministry owe a moral, a political, and a constitutional duty to Parliament to accept and follow the advice of Parliament;
That the Senate asserts that the Parliament of Canada, by its own study, examination, and conclusions, is now seized of the knowledge, that the divorce law regime currently in force in Canada is defective, insufficient, and even harmful, to the needs of children of divorce, their parents, and their families; and that the Senate being seized of this knowledge of the inadequate state of the divorce law regime, has a moral imperative and a bounden parliamentary duty to correct the situation forthwith, because possessing the knowledge of the children's plight and ongoing damage to them, Parliament's continued inaction and neglect is unconscionable;
That the Senate upholds the enormous public support of the people of Canada for the entitlements of the children of divorce to meaningful involvement with both their parents and families, and that the Senate further upholds all the children, their parents, and their families afflicted by the current divorce law regime; and
That the Senate of Canada, by virtue of the doctrine of the parens patriae, and the Senate's duty as stewards of the children of divorce, resolves to defend and protect the children of divorce; and that the Senate resolves to vindicate the needs and entitlements of the children of divorce to the emotional and financial support of both parents; and that "for the sake of the children" and in the "best interests of the child", the Senate resolves that the responsible Minister, Minister of Justice Anne McLellan, should cause a new divorce act to be introduced in the Senate or in the House of Commons, to implement, without delay, these recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.-(Honourable Senator DeWare).
No. 127. (nine) (motion)
April 20, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion as modified of the Honourable Senator Di Nino, seconded by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin:
That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to use its good offices to urge the Government of China to respect the right to self-determination and human rights of the people of Tibet and in particular to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as resolutions of the UN General Assembly in 1960, 1961 and 1965 which affirmed these rights for the Tibetan people; and further
That the Government of Canada urge the Government of China to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, without preconditions and under the auspices of the United Nations, to attempt to resolve the Tibetan problem.-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk).
No. 49. (nine) (inquiry)
December 2, 1998-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Forrestall calling the attention of the Senate to the Liberal cancellation of EH-101, and the state of Canada's Labrador and Sea King helicopter fleets.-(Honourable Senator Stratton).
No. 114. (eleven) (motion)
March 17, 1999-Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare:
That a Special Committee of the Senate be appointed to examine and report upon the conduct of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Solicitor General and the Privy Council Office in the security arrangements for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference held in Vancouver in November 1997, and any issues subsequently arising therefrom. In particular, the allegations that political motivations rather than security considerations were used unlawfully which resulted in the violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom assembly and freedom of association of certain Canadian citizens and the suppression of legitimate protest.
That seven Senators, nominated by the Committee of Selection act as members of the Special Committee, and that three members constitute a quorum;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have power to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee have the power to engage the services of such counsel and other professional, technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purposes of its examination;
That the political parties represented on the Special Committee be granted allocations for expert assistance with the work of the Committee;
That it be empowered to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;
That the Committee submit its report not later than one year from the date of it being constituted, provided that if the Senate is not sitting, the report shall be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the Senate.-(Honourable Senator Carstairs).
No. 68. (eleven) (inquiry)
June 1, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Corbin calling the attention of the Senate to his observations and thoughts arising from 16 days spent in Africa with Their Excellencies the Governor General of Canada the Right Honourable Roméo LeBlanc and his wife Diana Fowler LeBlanc, who were carrying out the first Canadian state visit to the Ivory Coast, Tanzania, Mali and Morocco.-(Honourable Senator Comeau).
No. 50. (thirteen) (inquiry)
December 1, 1998-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Stewart calling the attention of the Senate to the Eighth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs entitled: "Crisis in Asia: Implications for the Region, Canada and the World."-(Honourable Senator Kinsella).
No. 64. (fourteen) (inquiry)
March 10, 1999-Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to International Women's Week, and to the participation of women in the legislative institutions of Canada, at the federal and provincial level, and particularly in the Senate of Canada.-(Honourable Senator Carstairs)
No. 84. (three)
By the Honourable Senator Di Nino:
June 16, 1999-That he will call the attention of the Senate to this Government's dealings with China and the effects on Canada and Canadians.
No. 87. (one)
By the Honourable Senator Chalifoux:
September 8, 1999-That she will call the attention of the Senate to "Shelter Strategy for Aboriginal Peoples".
No. 89. (one)
By the Honourable Senator Cools:
September 9, 1999-That she will call the attention of the Senate:
(a) to persons of Canadian birth who sat as members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, including Ontario born Edward Blake, Liberal Minister of Justice of Canada 1875-77 also Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada 1880-87 and New Brunswick born Bonar Law, the Rt. Honourable Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 1922-23 and Ontario born Sir Bryant Irvine, Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom 1976-82;
(b) to persons of Canadian birth who sat as members of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, including Richard B. Bennett the Rt. Hon. Prime Minster of Canada 1930-35 and Lord Beaverbrook, Minister in the United Kingdom Cabinet;
(c) to persons of British birth born in the United Kingdom and Colonies who served in the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada including the Rt. Hon. John Turner Prime Minister 1984 also Liberal Leader of the Opposition l984-90 and myself, a black female Senator born in the British West Indies;
(d) the Supreme Court of Canada's Chief Justices' memberships in the Privy Council of the United Kingdom and to the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice the Rt. Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret to the United Kingdom Privy Council in 1947;
(e) to the many distinguished Canadians who have received honours since 1919 from the King or Queen of Canada including the knighting in 1934 of Sir Lyman Duff, Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice and in 1935 of Sir Ernest MacMillan, musician and in 1986 of Sir Bryant Irvine, parliamentarian and in 1994 of Sir Neil Shaw, industrialist and in 1994 Sir Conrad Swan, advisor to Prime Minister Lester Pearson on the National Flag of Canada;
(f) to the many distinguished Canadians who have received 646 orders and distinctions conferred by foreign non-British-Canadian sovereigns since 1919 and before February 1929;
(g) to the recommendation by the United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, for appointment as a non-hereditary Lord to the House of Lords of Conrad Black, a distinguished Canadian entrepreneur publisher and the Honorary Colonel of the Governor General's Foot Guards of Canada;
(h) to the 1919 Nickle Resolution, a motion of the House of Commons of Canada for an address to His Majesty King George V and to Prime Minister R. B. Bennett's 1934 characterization of this Resolution that:
"That was as ineffective in law as it is possible for any group of words to be. It was not only ineffective, but I am sorry to say, it was an affront to the sovereign himself. Every constitutional lawyer, or anyone who has taken the trouble to study this matter realizes that that is what was done.";
(i) to the 1934 words of Prime Minister R. B. Bennett that:
"So long as I remain a citizen of the British Empire and a loyal subject of the King, I do not propose to do otherwise than assume the prerogative rights of the Sovereign to recognize the services of his subjects.";
(j) to the legal and constitutional position of persons of Canadian birth and citizenship, in respect of their abilities and disabilities for membership in the United Kingdom House of Lords and House of Commons, particularly Canadians domiciled in the United Kingdom holding dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and Canada;
(k) to the legal and constitutional position of Canadians at home and abroad in respect of entitlement to receive honours and distinctions from their own Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II of Canada, and to their position in respect of entitlement to receive honours and distinctions from sovereigns other than their own;
(l) to honours, distinctions, and awards that are not hereditary such as life peerages, knighthoods, military and chivalrous orders; and
(m) to a sham republicanism which holds that the recognition of one's public service by one's own sovereign in non-hereditary honours is undemocratic and to the systematic historical and constitutional vandalism in Canada's constitutional order the Queen in Parliament.
No. 90. (one)
By the Honourable Senator Cools:
September 10, 1999-That she will call the attention of the Senate:
(a) to the September 29, 1995 Letter of Request for Assistance to Switzerland written by Kimberly Prost of the Department of Justice, a copy of which I tabled in the Senate on December 17, 1996, which stated in part:
"The above three cases demonstrate an ongoing scheme by Mr. MULRONEY, Mr. MOORES, and Mr. SCHREIBER to defraud the Canadian Government of millions of dollars of public funds from the time Mr. Mulroney took office in September, 1984 until he resigned in June, 1993.";
and which requested access to Mr. Mulroney's alleged Swiss bank accounts;
(b) to the publishing in the media of the terrible and preposterous allegations about Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada 1984-93, and to the ensuing libel lawsuit by him, occasioned by these allegations, against the then Attorney General of Canada Allan Rock and Kimberly Prost, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;
(c) to the settlement of this lawsuit and to the terms of its Settlement Agreement of January 5, 1997, particularly its terms 3,4,5 and 9 that:
3. "Some of the language contained in the Request for Assistance indicates, wrongly, that the RCMP had reached conclusions that Mr. Mulroney had engaged in criminal activity.
4. Based on the evidence received to date, the RCMP acknowledges that any conclusions of wrongdoing by the former Prime Minister were - and are - unjustified.
5. The Government of Canada and the RCMP regret any damage suffered by Mr. Mulroney and his family and fully apologize to them.
...
9. The parties accept that the RCMP, on its own, initiated the Airbus investigation; that the Minister of Justice was not involved in the decision to initiate the investigation; and that before November 4, 1995, the Minister of Justice was not aware of the Request for Assistance and the RCMP investigation.";
(d) to the abiding and continuing public embarrassment and humiliation to Mr. Mulroney and his family which cause and compel him to continuously seek legal assistance and representation to clear his name and protect his reputation despite the Attorney General's and the RCMP's clear declaration of no wrongdoing on Mr. Mulroney's part;
(e) to the July 5, 1999 letter in this vein from Mr. Mulroney's counsel Gerald Tremblay to the Swiss authorities which stated in part:
"Our client wished to know how the Swiss authorities involved are participating in what appears from our client's perspective to be a political attack rather than bona fide legal cooperation.";
(f) to the August 23, 1999 letter in response to Gerald Tremblay from Andreas Huber-Schlatter the Secretary General Federal Department of Justice of Switzerland, again clearing Mr. Mulroney and declaring the non-existence of these alleged Swiss bank accounts, stating in part:
"Furthermore, please note that none of the bank records so far produced or yet to be produced involve accounts of Mr. Mulroney's. ... your client is not affected...";
and
(g) to the need for the Senate of Canada to bring these complex and disturbing matters into its cognizance and to examine them in a public parliamentary forum, the only forum sufficient to distinguish wrong-doing from malicious conjecture, to distinguish the law from politics, and to examine all the roles in the matter of the seemingly unrelenting, personal persecution of Mr. Mulroney, and to the need to give those unjustly damaged by this matter an opportunity to be heard publicly, including Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Allan Rock, and in the public interest to finally settle these matters.
No. 91.
By the Honourable Senator Cools:
September 13, 1999-That she will call the attention of the Senate:
(a) to the August 21, 1999 public announcement by Chief Justice Antonio Lamer of his intended resignation from the Supreme Court of Canada for January 7, 2000, prior to the formal, official notification to the Governor General or the Prime Minister;
(b) to the very public occasion for this intended resignation announcement being the annual meeting in Edmonton of the Canadian Bar Association, and to the very public, highly orchestrated media staging of this announcement;
(c) to the peculiar and unusual manner and style of this resignation, and to the proper form and manner of resignation of persons of high judicial office;
(d) to the public debate, controversies, and expressions of opinion actuated by this public announcement of intended resignation, and to the media reports of same;
(e) to the relationship between politics and propaganda, and to the definition of propaganda in Fowler's English Usage as a:
"...systematic propagation of selected information to give prominence to the views of a particular group...";
(f) to the proper relationship of judges to politics and to the political art of propaganda;
(g) to the political concept of judicial independence in Canada, and to the rules that judges restrain from seeking political or public support for beliefs, thoughts or deeds, and restrain from participation in public controversies, because of their positions of high judicial office; and
(h) to the pressing public and social concern about these matters, and the judicial and political condition in Canada today.
No. 88.
By the Honourable Senator Gauthier:
September 9, 1999-That he will call the attention of the Senate to the recent Francophonie Summit, held in Moncton from September 3 to September 5. The Summit focused on youth, whose active involvement is essential to safeguard the future of La Francophonie, the world-wide French-speaking community.
The Summit also looked at La Francophonie's political dimension, stressing conflict prevention and resolution, the safety of civilian populations, and the strengthening of the rule of law and democracy.
No. 85.
By the Honourable Senator Atkins:
September 7, 1999-That he will call the attention of the Senate to the financing of post-secondary education in Canada and in particular that portion of the financing that is borne by students, with a view to developing policies that will address and alleviate the debt load which post-secondary students are being burdened with in Canada.
Nil
No. 147.
By the Honourable Senator Comeau:
May 6, 1999-A Canadian citizen submitted an application on December 10, 1998 to the DFO Scotia-Fundy office for an exploratory permit to fish Snow Crab on the tail of the Grand Banks (outside the Canadian 200 mile limit). There is apparently only one licence holder who occasionally fishes in these waters.
The Director of Resource Management for the Newfoundland region responded on December 30, 1998, that "any additional access to this area will only be provided to enterprises based in the Newfoundland region."
This raises a number of questions for which I would ask clarification and precision:
1. The Resource Management Director's letter demonstrates that it is now government policy or practice to reserve certain fishing zones to be the exclusive privileges of the residents of given provinces. When was this policy or practice approved and has it been widely announced?
2. Did the government consult with stakeholders; provincial authorities, fishermen's organizations, aboriginals and communities? Please provide a summary of the consultation process and industry reaction to this "policy" .
3. Please provide other examples of similar "residents only may apply" fishing zones in Canada or beyond Canada's boundaries.
4. (a) How is the residency requirement established? (b) Does the applicant need a house in the province in question? (c) Would an apartment establish residency? (d) Must an applicant be born in the particular province? (e) If not, how long must one be resident to attain landed residency status?
5. Would such residency discrimination withstand a Charter challenge, and please provide a legal opinion if this has been considered?
6. Under what authority or instrument did the government decree that exclusive zones based on residency be established?
7. Under what authority or instrument does the government grant itself the right to issue or deny a fishing permit in international waters?
8. Please provide details of any scientific assessment of the condition of the snow crab stock on the tail of the banks?
9. The application in question was to target terminal molt males. These crabs will simply die of old age if not harvested. Why would the government not consider fishing a resource which is going to die on the ocean floor if not harvested?
10. Given that there is little or no fishing activity in this international zone, would it not be judicious to encourage a controlled, conservation-minded fishery in this zone in order to establish a history?
11. The awarding of exploratory licences by DFO appears to be contradictory. The application made December 10, 1998, by a small enterprise referred to above was denied, whereas the application for an exploratory licence outside the 50 mile Eastern Shore region was accepted. Why did this happen? Is there a double standard?