DOCSLIB.ORG

RULINGS of the SPEAKER of the SENATE 39Th Parliament 2006-2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RULINGS of the SPEAKER of the SENATE 39Th Parliament 2006-2008 RULINGS OF THE SPEAKER OF THE SENATE 39th Parliament 2006-2008 April 2016 Prepared by the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office Introduction Ever since Confederation, the Speaker of the Senate has been appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Constitution does not, however, assign specific responsibilities to the incumbent. These are found in the Rules of the Senate, and they have evolved over time. Originally, the Speaker of the Senate was not given any broad power to enforce the Rules, emphasizing the equality of senators and the fact that the institution is largely self-governing. This evolved over time, with the Senate granting the Speaker broader powers. However, most of these powers have remained subject to appeal to the Senate. As of the Rules revisions of 2012, the Speaker’s primary roles are to preside over proceedings, to rule on certain procedural matters (points of order, the prima facie merits of questions of privilege and requests for emergency debates), and to preserve order and decorum during the sitting. Because of the Senate’s appointed nature and members’ long terms of service, there are times when the government – which is based on the party that has the confidence of the House of Commons – does not have a majority – or even a plurality – of seats in the Senate. These transitional periods can be especially challenging for the Speaker, who has to assist the Senate in functioning smoothly and fulfilling its major role as a complementary legislative chamber of sober second thought. The rulings of the Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, P.C., for the 39th Parliament are contained in this book, and represent such a transitional period. Speaker Kinsella was named to the chair on the recommendation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2006. He then continued in that position until his resignation from the Senate in 2014, becoming the second-longest serving Speaker since Confederation. Over his almost nine years in office there were well over one hundred rulings of points or order and questions of privilege, as well as statements from the chair. It is a testimony to the respect in which Speaker Kinsella was held by all his colleagues that only one of his rulings was appealed to the Senate. The rulings in this collection provide clarification about the operation of Senate procedure and demonstrate how the Speaker seeks to balance the various principles that underlie Canada’s system of parliamentary government. As such, these decisions will be invaluable to senators, their staff, the Senate administration, and anyone interested in better understanding Senate proceedings. Charles Robert Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments i TABLE OF CONTENTS First session, Thirty-Ninth Parliament (April 3, 2006-September 17, 2007) Senate Chamber — Electronic disturbances ............................................................................. 3 Question Period — Conduct ..................................................................................................... 3 Bill — Requirement for Royal Recommendation ..................................................................... 4 Senate Chamber — Interference with Sound System ............................................................... 6 Question of Privilege — Alleged Misleading Statements ........................................................ 8 Debate — Use of a Third Language ......................................................................................... 9 Content of Notice for Question of Privilege ........................................................................... 11 Bill — Debate When Subject-Matter Referred to Committee ................................................ 11 Content of Notice for Question of Privilege ........................................................................... 12 Committee Report — Procedural Significance of Observations ............................................ 15 Question Period — Questions to Ministers............................................................................. 15 Message from Commons ........................................................................................................ 17 Debate — Adjourning in Name of Absent Senator (Ruling given by the Speaker pro tempore) ..................................................................................................................... 17 Motion — Senate’s Congratulations to Speaker (Ruling given by the Speaker pro tempore) ........................................................................................................................... 19 Bill — Requirement for Royal Recommendation ................................................................... 21 Question Period — Questions to Committee Chairs .............................................................. 23 Debate — Extension of Time for a Determined Period .......................................................... 25 Senate Chamber — Decorum ................................................................................................. 27 Motion — Resolution of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly ................................................ 28 Motion — Action by a Foreign Government .......................................................................... 30 Bill — Message from Commons ............................................................................................ 31 Senate Chamber — Electronic Disturbances .......................................................................... 31 Committees — Membership Changes .................................................................................... 32 Question Period — Duration .................................................................................................. 34 Senators’ Statements — Anticipating an Order of the Day .................................................... 34 Question of Privilege — Participation in Committee Work ................................................... 35 Debate — Question Before Senate ......................................................................................... 37 Second Session, Thirty-Ninth Parliament (October 16, 2007-September 7, 2008) Committee of Selection — Nomination of Members of Committees (Ruling given by the Speaker pro tempore) ....................................................................................................... 41 Report from Past Session — Motion to Adopt ....................................................................... 41 Motion — Receivability of Subamendment ........................................................................... 44 Motion — Not Yet Moved by Sponsor ................................................................................... 44 Message from Commons — Content ...................................................................................... 45 Motion — To Send Message to the Commons ....................................................................... 45 Written Questions — Printing on Order Paper and Notice Paper ......................................... 45 Bill — Requirement for Royal Consent .................................................................................. 46 Question Period — Duration .................................................................................................. 47 Question Period — Reference to Vote in Commons .............................................................. 47 Debate — References to a Previous Ruling ............................................................................ 49 Senators’ Statements — Content ............................................................................................ 50 iii Adjournment of Debate — Other Business ............................................................................ 52 Bill — Financial Initiative of the Crown ................................................................................ 52 Question Period — Authority of the Speaker to Maintain Order ........................................... 53 Bill — Requirement for Royal Recommendation ................................................................... 53 Question of Privilege — Official Languages .......................................................................... 56 Question of Privilege — Official Languages .......................................................................... 56 Index ............................................................................................................................................. 59 iv First Session, Thirty-Ninth Parliament April 3, 2006 – September 17, 2007 Speaker: The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella Speaker pro tempore: The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool Senate Chamber — Electronic disturbances April 5, 2006 Journals, p. 24 I thank Honourable Senator Carstairs for raising this matter at our session this afternoon, and I want to draw all honourable senators’ attention to page 19 of our rule book, rule 19(4). It reads as follows: No person, nor any Senator, shall bring any electronic device which produces any sound, whether for personal communication or other use, into the Senate Chamber, whether on the floor, inside the Bar, outside the Bar, or in the galleries. Honourable senators, the reading of the rule is crystal clear, and I would encourage all honourable senators to act accordingly. Question Period — Conduct May 10, 2006 Journals, pp. 134-135 Last Wednesday, May 3, a point of order was raised by
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mr. Speaker, It's My Pleasure to Introduce to You and Through You to Other Members of the Assembly Ms Title: Thursday, March 22, 1990 2:30 P.M
    March 22, 1990 Alberta Hansard 213 Legislative Assembly of Alberta MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to other members of the Assembly Ms Title: Thursday, March 22, 1990 2:30 p.m. Molly Anderson, who is a teacher from the state of Florida who is here on a Fulbright exchange. Ms Anderson tells us she is Date: 90/03/22 very impressed with the education system in Alberta. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] head: Oral Question Period [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] Meech Lake Accord head: Prayers MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. Yesterday we learned that the Premier and his western counterparts have MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. agreed to set up a task force that will try to develop a common front among western provinces to deal with the constitutional Lord, forgive our excessive busyness as we seek to do our crisis. I'd say to the Premier that we welcome this initiative business. because we've watched with growing alarm the constitutional Grant us an awareness of these moments of life that we might crisis developing and the thought that our country could break take on a renewed sense of commitment as we seek to serve all up from lack of unity. At the same time, we are concerned that Albertans. the formation of this common front does not lead to a hardening Amen. of positions and that the committee will explore all avenues that head: Notices of Motions might lead to a solution to this current constitutional crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Darren Praznik 125
    INTERVIEW WITH DARREN PRAZNIK 125 Interview with Darren Praznik 160 A good parliamentary system is about checks and balances. Ultimately, the majority will rule, as it should. But the minority members of the House have huge ability to make the government go through a lot of processes before they ultimately rule. - Darren Praznik Any minister who is not prepared to accept reasonable suggestions or improvements from the opposition or the public does so at their own peril. You look stubborn, you look like you're on an ego trip as opposed to being a good minister, and I think you're always better to be flexible in the process. .1 always respected those groups who 2003 CanLIIDocs 77 came to me and said `we're opposed to your public policy decision, but if you're going to do it, these things make it better'. I mean, why would you just want to make it hard for people for no reason? - Darren Praznik I. INTRODUCTION s a young lawyer, Darren Praznik was first elected to the Manitoba ALegislature in 1988. Under Premier Gary Filmon, Darren served as Minister responsible for a wide variety of portfolios, including Labour, Energy and Mines, Northern and Native Affairs, Health, and Highways and Transportation. Darren continued to serve as a member of the Official Opposition from 1999 until February of 2002. He has since served as Executive Director of Government Relations for Canadian Blood Services. Over eleven years in government, Darren was witness to a number of notable legislative crises, including the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in 1990 and the Manitoba Telephone System privatization debate in 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID's Collateral Contagion
    June 2020 COVID’s Collateral Contagion: Why Faking Parliament is No Way to Govern in a Crisis Christian Leuprecht The COVID-19 epidemic is the greatest test for the maintenance of Canada’s democratic constitutional order in at least 50 years, certainly since the October crisis of 1970. It is also a bellwether for the way the Canadian state manages risk. Risks that stem from globalization have a common denominator: by definition, no state can manage them alone. However, citizens still expect their state to act. Confronted with dire predictions of immi- nent Armageddon, politicians invoke largely performative measures to signal to citizens that they are acting – to manage a risk that is largely beyond their control. Managing risk has become to individual citizens the essence of the modern welfare state: unemployment insur- ance, health care insurance, mortgage insurance, etc. Such is the essence of “risk society”: the expectations by citizens that the state will manage risks, many of which the state cannot control, such as a global pandemic. Paradoxically, the less control and certainty the state has over a risk that is perceived as existential, the more heavy-handed is its approach. Precisely because of the threatening environment in which it exists and because it is shut out of many international organizations, Taiwan was well prepared for the pandemic and its reaction was measured. By contrast, much of the rest of the democratic world was ill-prepared, which explains the heavy-handed measures taken by many of these countries, including Canada. The author of this document has worked independently and is solely responsible for the views presented here.
    [Show full text]
  • Test Your Knowledge of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario! Discover What a Typical Day Is Like at Ontario's Parliament
    Test your knowledge of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario! Discover what a typical day is like at Ontario's Parliament. Fill in the blanks using words from the word bank below. 8:55 a.m. It is 8:55 a.m. and everyone is rushing around in the Legislative Building to get ready for the meeting of the , also called the House, which is about to begin promptly at 9:00 a.m. The sessional bells are ringing throughout the Legislative Building to summon all the Members of Provincial Parliament, or , to the Legislative Chamber. The young Legislative look dapper in their traditional as they scurry about getting the ready for the business day. They take their posts on either side of the Speaker and by the Chamber doors. The Pages serve in the House for approximately two to four weeks during each session. They are grade students from across Ontario, who are here to learn about the legislative process and how works. When in the Chamber, they bring glasses of water and deliver . 9:00 a.m. Each meeting begins with the entry of the Speaker into the Chamber. The is approaching the entrance to the Legislative Assembly. The Sergeant-at-Arms, carrying the mace on her right shoulder, leads the Speaker, the of the House, the Clerks-at-the-Table and two Legislative Pages into the . " !" says the Senior Attendant as the enters the Chamber. Everyone is standing as the takes his place on the dais. The Clerk and the take their places at the big table in front of the Speaker, and he Pages proceed to their assigned posts.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Priorities and Public Opinion: Representation of Partisan Agendas in the Canadian House of Commons* Erin Penner
    Legislative Priorities and Public Opinion: Representation of Partisan Agendas in the Canadian House of Commons* Erin Penner, Kelly Blidook and Stuart Soroka McGill University 5390 Words, + 2 tables, 3 figures Prepared for submission to the Journal of European Public Policy Abstract: Oral questions are a central feature of the Canadian parliamentary system, and a valuable indication of legislators’ issue attentiveness. Here, we consider parties’ behavior in Question Period, with a particular interest in Opposition parties’ representation of the public’s (and publics’) issue priorities. We do so using a content analytic database of oral questions covering three Parliaments from 1988-1999. We begin with some descriptive analyses of the distribution of oral questions across issues and parties, and then explore what drives parties’ attention to issues. Combining the oral questions database with public opinion data, we examine the relationship between the issue priorities of both parties and partisans. In doing so, we examine two different foci of representation: a generalized national constituency, and each party’s partisan constituency. * This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC). The authors are grateful to the Canadian Opinion Research Archive (CORA) at Queen’s University and the Library of Parliament for providing some of the necessary data. Previous versions of this paper were presented at Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, London, Ontario, June 2-4 2005, and at “New Directions in Comparative Public Policy: Policies and Institutions,” a conference held at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, July 1-2 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Calls of the Wild: Resignation Requests in the Canadian House of Commons 1957-2008∗
    Calls of the Wild: Resignation Requests in the Canadian House of Commons 1957-2008∗ Matthew Kerby [email protected] Department of Political Science Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Abstract This research focuses on a particular class of parliamentary question: the call for a minister’s resignation. First, attention is paid to providing an initial look at where calls for resignation are situated in time and space. The second objective of this research is to examine the real effect of a call for resignation. Do ministers actually resign when they are called to? The answer is “yes, ministers do resign when called to . sometimes.” However, a closer examination is required to establish the true cause and effect in this relationship. Data drawn from an original dataset which records every call for resignation in the Canadian House of Commons for the period 1957-2008 is used to provide a clearer picture of the nature and relevance of parliamentary questions not only in Canada but in other Westminster parliamentary democracies as well. If the essence of Parliament is Government accountability, then surely the essence of account- ability is the Question Period in the Canadian House of Commons (1985, p.51). Hon. James Jerome Speaker of the House of Commons, 1974-1980 1 Introduction Considerable attention has been directed to the subject of parliamentary questions in Western democracies. Parliamentary questions are visible, they are recorded, they are often linked to contentious political events and actors. Parliamentary questions lend themselves for analysis by single case or large n quantitative studies; they can be treated as dependent or independent variables.
    [Show full text]
  • (Cpha) Question Period Monitoring Report
    June 4 – June 10, 2016 Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) Question Period Monitoring Report Contents Federal ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Physician-Assisted Dying ..................................................................................................................... 1 Ontario ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Electronic cigarettes ............................................................................................................................ 7 Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016 ....................................................................................... 7 Northwest Territories ............................................................................................................................... 33 Ministers Statement on Medical Assistance in Dying ....................................................................... 33 FEDERAL Physician-Assisted Dying June 6, 2016: Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan has now joined the growing number of Canadians saying that Bill C-14 is likely unconstitutional. Cowan said that this government legislation is so flawed that Canadians would be better off with no legislation at all. This bill does not respect the Supreme Court's decision, and it will be
    [Show full text]
  • Monday, September 28, 1998
    CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 127 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, September 28, 1998 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 8431 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, September 28, 1998 The House met at 11 a.m. how taxpayers feel on certain issues, for example, the credibility of political leaders in negotiating these types of deals. _______________ Even though it is taxpayer money that is used to find out what the taxpayers feel about particular situations, they are not being Prayers told. They are not being given the information. We have some _______________ serious problems with that. This is very reminiscent of what happened with Brian Mulroney in 1992 when the Tories refused to release the taxpayer-funded PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS polls on Charlottetown. It begs the question of why this taxpayer money is being spent. Why are these polls being held back? Why D (1100 ) are we not being apprised of the situation? [English] It boils down to a few reasons. One of the things the government likes to say is that somehow this will taint federal-provincial CALGARY DECLARATION relations. That was decided in court by Judge Rothstein. I will get into the quotes in a minute. In that case there was a determination Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved: that the government did not have a legitimate case to deprive the That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause public of these documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Leung Sanney Sec. Nc 1996.Pdf (5.876Mb)
    EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION IN SASKATCHEWAN AND THE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT 1986-87-88 A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in the Department of Political Studies University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Sanney Leung Fall 1996 (c) Copyright Sanney Leung, 1996. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for the copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of material in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Political Studies University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK S7N OWO i ABSTRACT In the 1986-87-88 session of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly, the government of Grant Devine introduced Bill 5 an Act respecting the Organization of the Executive Government of Saskatchewan.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming Prorogation
    While the House of Commons could un- doubtedly amend its Standing Orders on mat- Reforming ters like the structure of Question Period, elec- tronic voting, or limiting the use of omnibus bills, the House of Commons alone does not Prorogation: possess the authority to regulate the exercise of the prime minister’s authority over prorogation. The Commons doesn’t have Regulating Prorogation the authority to regulate Prorogation ends a session of Parliament and thereby clears all business from the Order the exercise of the prime Paper as if it never existed (apart, since 2003, from Private Members’ Bills) and terminates minister’s authority over all committee business. The period between sessions of Parliament, the duration of the pro- prorogation — writes rogation, is called the intersession. The execu- tive authority over prorogation ultimately flows from the Constitution Act, 1867; section 9 vests James W. J. Bowden the general “executive authority in and over Canada” in the Queen, and section 38 vests in the Governor General the authority to sum- he federal Liberal Party pledged in their mon, and therefore by necessity, to prorogue, Telection platform from 2015 that they Parliament. The Prime Minister alone advises would never use prorogation for purely politi- the Governor General to prorogue a session of cal purposes or tactical considerations if they Parliament, either through an instrument of formed government. Instead, they would use advice or by telephone. The prorogation is pro- prorogation in a perfunctory way and end a ses- mulgated into force either by a set of two proc- sion once Parliament had passed their legisla- lamations published in the Canada Gazette or tive commitments that flowed from the Speech by the Governor General’s speech in the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Economy and Constitutional Reform Hearings
    POLITICAL ECONOMY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM HEARINGS BEFORE THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE CONGRESS OF TUE UNITED STATES NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION PART 1 NOVEMBER 9, 17, 18, AND DECEMBER 16, 1982 Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 14-523 0 WASHINGTON: 1983 JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE [Created pursuant to sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Cong.] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SENATE HENRY S. REUSS, Wisconsin, Chairman ROGER W. JEPSEN, Iowa, Vice Chairman RICHARD BOLLING, Missouri WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana JAMES ABDNOR, South Dakota GILLIS W. LONG, Louisiana STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho PARREN J. MITCHELL, Maryland PAULA HAWKINS, Florida AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California MACK MATTINGLY, Georgia CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio LLOYD BENTSEN, Texas MARGARET M. HECKLER, Massachusetts WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts CHALMERS P. WYLIE, Ohio PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JAMEs K. GALBRAIrH, Executive Director BRUCE R. BARTmrr, Deputy Director (H) FOREWORD By Hon. Henry S. Reuss, Chairman The Joint Economic Committee's hearings on Political Economy and Constitutional Reform, along with the papers and other mate- rial published in the Appendix, contain the observations and recommendations of some of the most thoughtful critics of the American political system today. During three days of hearings in November 1982, the Committee brought together more than a dozen academics, journalists, and former government officials and lawmakers to discuss how we could improve the performance of our political system, and the performance of our economy, by making changes in the structure of our government and, if necessary, in our Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Problem with the Administrative State
    Mancini Final (Do Not Delete) 9/28/20209/28/2020 3:12 PM THE POLITICAL PROBLEM WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE * MARK P. MANCINI ABSTRACT. This paper argues that, in the administrative state, political controls (such as appointments and reappointments) are a desirable and necessary tool to subject administrative actors to accountability. The paper exhorts human rights advocates to accept some element of these controls (and the risk of abuse of these controls) in the administrative state, while focusing attention on problematic uses of delegated power: particularly, those uses of delegated power that undermine the overall statutory scheme. KEYWORDS: administrative law, political control, delegation, administrative tribunals, independence, accountability. * National Director, Runnymede Society. J.D., University of New Brunswick, LL.M., University of Chicago. 55 Mancini Final (Do Not Delete) 9/28/2020 3:12 PM 56 JOURNAL OF COMMONWEALTH LAW [Vol. 2 I. INTRODUCTION There is a tension1 in administrative law between the principles of political control2 and independence.3 On one hand, political control (power over appointments, reappointments, and other forms of control over tribunals and decision-makers) comes from the desire to subject all power, including delegated power, to the scrutiny of Parliament and therefore the people.4 1 Lorne Sossin, ‘The Uneasy Relationship between Independence and Appointments in Canadian Administrative Law’ in Grant Huscroft and Michael Taggart, eds, Inside and Outside Canadian Administrative Law: Essays in Honour of David Mullan (Toronto University Press 2006) 50. 2 See Law Reform Commission of Canada, Political Control of Independent Administrative Agencies Study Paper (1979). 3 For the purposes of this paper, I distinguish, like the Supreme Court does, between “impartiality” and “independence”.
    [Show full text]