[ SkipToMainMenu ]

In the Chamber

Click the links below to review past speeches/statements I have given in the Senate.  


(File) Bill C-2, The Federal Accountability Act - Third Reading

Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, permit me to begin my remarks by echoing thanks to all of the support staff who helped in relation to Bill C-2 throughout the three readings and the report stage. Senator Oliver has read the names, and we on this side support that acknowledgement. One of his comments indicated that they worked all night to prepare the documents and then the difficulty faced with respect to rule 101. Certainly, this place should take a look at a rule that does not add much to help honourable senators understand the process and what has gone on in committee but does bog the system down unnecessarily.

I would like to thank each honourable senator who has risen to speak to Bill C-2, the proposed federal accountability act. Debate in this chamber has been rich. I believe that it has contributed to a greater understanding amongst all honourable senators of the potential impact of this enormous piece of proposed legislation.

I do not intend at third reading to discuss in detail the amendments to Bill C-2 proposed by the Legal Committee. I did so when I spoke at the report stage. The committee's report and the speeches delivered by honourable senators who participated in the committee in the days previous has succeeded in doing just that. I wish to thank all honourable senators for accepting the committee's report in its entirety, including the nearly 50 amendments proposed by the government, 100 amendments by the committee, and the committee's observations.

I would like to focus on the broader aspects of this proposed legislation and some of the challenges that we faced, and the challenges faced by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during the study of this bill. That is not an easy task with respect to Bill C-2. To borrow from a well-known expression, we have been amongst the trees of this Bill C-2 legislation for so long that it is difficult to stand back and view the forest. Let me attempt to do so.

Let us stand back and look at what prompted Bill C-2. To begin, I would like to quote from Mr. Justice Gomery's report. He said:

The vast majority of public servants try, in good faith, to do their job properly and effectively, and the Canadian government system consists of solid political institutions with a long and distinguished history of public service. The Sponsorship Program involved only a tiny proportion of the annual expenditures of the government. Its mishandling was an aberration. The majority of the expenditures of the federal government are well handled, and citizens usually get value for money from them...

He continued:

It is not the Commission's intention to recommend radical solutions, a transformation of our parliamentary system, or a complete overhaul of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. Rather, we propose to clarify that concept and, where mismanagement has occurred, to strengthen the capacity of those charged with holding people to account to do their job.

I repeat: "— to strengthen the capacity of those charged with holding people to account to do their job."

The federal accountability bill, as provided to the Senate, was not good legislation. The government often has bragged that Bill C-2 was drafted in just six weeks after the election. This was before cabinet was fully established. This was while new MPs were wondering where their offices were and were hiring staff. The bill would have to have been directed by an unelected transition team or a team of campaign workers of the Conservative government.

The committee heard testimony time and time again from officers of Parliament, who are there to support parliamentarians and to hold the government to account, and who are directly affected by Bill C-2, that they were not consulted by the government before this proposed legislation came forward. John Reid, Information Commissioner, was not consulted. Dr. Bernard Shapiro, Ethics Commissioner, was not consulted. Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner, was not consulted. In her appearance before the committee, Ms. Stoddart expressed her frustration when she said:

We were not consulted and we did not see the text. Generally speaking, we are consulted for certain bills that could have an impact on privacy but, in this case, we were not consulted and we did not see the draft of the bill.


The following words were delivered by Arthur Kroeger, a person who was just quoted by Honourable Senator Oliver. During his appearance before our committee, Mr. Kroeger expressed his concerns with the way in which the bill was drafted. He said:

If the legislation had been written by a government with more experience in office, it may not have some items in it that it does...There is the other problem that some of the contents of legislation were, I think, developed during an election campaign, and there is always a risk of a bit of overkill for the sake of achieving a public effect during an electoral contest...

In the other place, second reading debate on Bill C-2 began on April 25 and ended two days later, on April 27. Following second reading, the bill was referred to the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-2, where the committee held hearings between May 3 and June 6.

Witnesses in the other place were given very little time to present their positions. As a result, we were informed that some potential witnesses refused to participate in the charade. In addition, report stage debate and third reading in the other place took one day.

Senator Mercer: One day. One day.

Senator Day: Is that, honourable senators, responsibility?

Some Hon. Senators: No!

Senator Day: Is that accountability?

Senator Mercer: No, not accountable.

Senator Day: Honourable senators, there has been a lot of rhetoric about Bill C-2, and expectations of the public have been raised. However, honourable senators, the federal accountability act, Bill C-2, will not have the impact that the federal government and Minister Baird suggest it will have.

To quote again from Justice Geometry more recently in a CBC interview:

If the proposed legislation is intended to prevent another AdScam, it is beyond comprehension why the Conservative bill ignores virtually all of the recommendations of his inquiry.

Sharon Sutherland, Professor of Public Studies at the University of Ottawa, appeared before our committee to speak, among other things, about the tone in which Bill C-2 was drafted. She said:

Insofar as the bill creates a mood, there is a theme of punishment, of new crimes or crimes relocated from one statute to another, or repeated in statutes, or summary convictions, or of naming, blaming and shaming.

I read this quote because I feel that the reference to "naming, blaming and shaming" is very telling of the current culture prevailing in this new young government. We need to evolve from this culture of distrust to a culture of honesty and respect.

Probably the most serious underlying issue of Bill C-2 relates to the trust of the Canadian people. The public puts its trust in this chamber and in the other place to make decisions after a thorough study and debate. Without this trust, the entire parliamentary system is endangered.

As I stated in this chamber on report stage debate, the notions of true accountability and transparency in government are of the utmost importance. We all support those objectives.

This week in this chamber, we heard honourable senators add to this culture of distrust by suggesting that the lengthy study of Bill C-2 was part of an overall plan by the Liberal party to stall this bill for political gain.

Senator Mercer: Nonsense!

Senator Day: In an effort to prove his point, one honourable senator depicted an elaborate scheme of dishonesty and delay. The honourable senator's accusations are baseless, and they are insulting to each honourable senator who took part in the study of this important bill.

The practice of attempting to achieve political gain by questioning the goodwill and trustworthiness of a political opponent, a parliamentary committee or a political party is counterproductive and simply wrong-minded.

Senator Tkachuk: You would never do that.

Senator Day: Unfortunately, I feel that this practice is occurring more frequently than ever before.

Senator Tkachuk: Yes, it sure is.

Senator Day: Often throughout our committee's study on Bill C-2, allegations were voiced to the media by the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet and even some honourable members of this chamber, which suggested that our intentions were less than honest. Accusations of stall and delay were frequent but were completely without merit.

By attempting to discredit the product and the work that was being completed by our committee, by discrediting the process, the government has potentially weakened the public's perception of all politicians. This does not serve Canada well, and it does not serve the Canadian people well.

In the later stages of our committee's study of this bill, we had the opportunity to hear testimony from one of Canada's most colourful and well-respected members of the Privy Council, the Honourable Eugene Whelan. Mr. Whelan requested an appearance before the committee to discuss the public appointments process. For the purpose of this speech today, I would like to refer to a statement he made regarding public trust. He said:

Today, there is a very wide feeling in our country, Canada, that there is no accountability and, therefore, no credibility. In turn, no one trusts anyone, especially those in government and the elected politicians. We are listed at the bottom of the totem pole. Why? Are we, the politicians, really that bad?

As I listened to the news reports and read publications from across the country, I find myself pondering the same question: Are politicians in Canada really that bad? My answer continues to be the same: No, we are not.

To conclude his argument regarding the current climate of distrust, Mr. Whelan stated the following:

This old politician has been around a long time and has seen a big part of our world. If there is a better life, a better administered country anywhere that is better than Canada, I want you to tell me, because I am an average Canadian and I want the very best. If there is a better country, show me the way and I will go there.

Well, Mr. Whelan, I do not believe there is a better country or a better way. Canada is a world leader in human and civil rights. We, as Canadians, are respected for our good governance, our respect for the rule of law, and our enormous potential as a fiscally accountable and dependable trading partner.

This is not to say that in a country like ours we cannot grow stronger with the help of good legislation. We can, and if honourable senators in this chamber accept Bill C-2 as it has now been amended, I feel that its significant improvements will have been made.

The other major challenge facing the committee during the study of Bill C-2 is linked closely to the climate of distrust to which I have just referred. Throughout this study, honourable senators, the role and the relevance of the Senate itself has been called into question by the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet. As an expression of the Prime Minister's frustration and disappointment with the amendments that were proposed to Bill C-2, Mr. Harper stated, "The behaviour of the Liberal party is arrogant and anti-democratic. That's really the problem. They haven't accepted the decision of the electorate."

I suggest to Mr. Harper that he has not understood the important role of a bicameral system.

In conjunction with these statements, the President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable John Baird, called a news conference with the sole purpose of denouncing the work of the Senate — not in analyzing the amendments, but denouncing generally the process.

I quote Mr. John Baird, "We have got to go over the heads of the backroom boys in the Liberal Party and speak to Canadians directly to get this bill passed."

Honourable senators, I find these statements quite astounding. The electorate granted the Conservative Party of Canada a minority government. Canadians want and expect our political parties to work together. Throughout the study of Bill C-2, the government has resorted to bullying and bad-mouthing instead of acting as a responsible and effective minority government.

I would also like to comment on Senator Nolin's speech at report stage. Senator Nolin was a participant in the study of Bill C-2, and he demands respect for his 13 years of experience on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Despite this experience, I have great difficulty with my colleague's suggestion that our committee ignored its duty of restraint. It is the responsibility of a Senate committee to scrutinize legislation which has been referred to it.

Due to the size of Bill C-2 and the speed with which it was drafted, the committee's scrutiny resulted in a large number of amendments by the opposition, as well as a large number of amendments, indeed, by the government itself. The reason for the large number is that many of these amendments were consequential. However, it was impossible for our committee to ignore the overwhelming amount of testimony received that deeply criticized many aspects of this bill. That testimony is part of the public record.

I urge those of you who have difficulty with respect to a specific amendment or who wonder why we did not go further in certain areas to refer to the testimony. I would also urge the committee's critics and the critics of the Senate, generally, to read the committee's observations. On several issues, committee members decided to write a critical observation about concerns which had been raised during testimony rather than to propose an amendment. That was an exercise in our duty of restraint, I would say to the Honourable Senator Nolin.

If the Senate is to remain, as it has been since Confederation, a valuable component in the parliamentary system, it must act independently and it must be able to act independently. If the Senate has concluded through testimony and rigorous debate that the administration of the day has acted against the best interests of the Canadian people, then it is the responsibility of senators to make amendments to that proposed legislation.

Honourable senators, I said I was not going to deal with the amendments that you have already voted on, but there are several others that you will be called upon to vote. I would like to look at those briefly. If honourable senators look at their Order Paper, they will see the listing of amendments which have been proposed.

The first list of amendments begins at the paragraph out to the left margin where honourable senators will see the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Mercer.

Senator Mercer's amendments all appear on page 3. All of these, honourable senators, relate to the provision for the creation of a director of public prosecutions. Senator Mercer has spoken on this issue. I can tell honourable senators, and a number of honourable senators have already told colleagues, that when we went into these hearings, we felt that the director of public prosecutions provisions were unnecessary. That was the mindset that we had going into the hearing. However, we heard from Antonio Lamer, who said that the concept was a good one. We heard from a former assistant deputy minister who was himself a director of public prosecutions and then became deputy minister. We heard from the Association of Trial Lawyers, and they said that the concept is a good one. They all pointed out that the most important aspect of this concept is that there must not be the possibility for partisan political interference with this extremely important position.

We decided that, based on the testimony, we would accept the concept. It is not a new concept; it exists in three provinces and in a number of jurisdictions. We saw one provision in that particular area of Bill C-2 that provided potentially for the Attorney General to have the opportunity for political interference. We made an amendment to ensure that the position was created objectively and not from a list of names that were given by the Attorney General.

Honourable senators, with all due respect to Senator Mercer, I am asking you to defeat his group of proposed amendments in which he would propose to delete the director of public prosecutions. I am asking you to accept the concept proposed by the government with the amendments which we have already made and voted on.

Senator Murray has four in his list of groups of amendments, and they start at page 4 and run over to the top of page 7. I congratulate Senator Murray the hard work, but I regret to say I am not able to support the honourable senator's amendments.

Senator Murray's first grouping of amendments is public appointments. It is important for honourable senators to understand that the director of public appointments will make no appointments. The job of the director of public appointments is to ensure that each ministry has set up an objective means of coming up with names for potential appointments. He or she and the group will go to each ministry and ensure that a set of rules are in place. Many ministries have sets of rules in place now, and many do not. The role of the director of public appointments is to ensure that there is some objective standard. It sounds like a reasonable concept, and we are prepared to support the concept proposed by the government and, therefore, not to support the proposal to remove that concept from Bill C-2, as proposed by Senator Murray.

The next group of proposed amendments relates to political financing. As I understand Senator Murray's comments from yesterday, he would like to return to the status quo. That is tempting to support, but we decided, following the duty of constraint, to make a strong statement in our observations but to support the government's position, in large part, in relation to political financing. We felt that it made logical sense that the regulations in relation to political financing come into play at the beginning of a donation year, namely, January 1. I fully expect that the government will be accepting all of our amendments, that this bill will be proclaimed and that it will be on January 1, 2007 that this will come into force.

We will not support, with all due respect to the Honourable Senator Murray, those amendments.

With respect to the increase from $1,000 to $2,000, so that everyone is clear, convention expenses are included as political donations because $1,000 was chosen on the concept and mistaken belief that they were not included. Now that they are included, the number must be increased to include those as well. That is really the only major change that we made.

The next bundle of amendments appears at page 5 of the Order Paper, regarding the director of public prosecutions. I have already spoken on that subject with respect to Senator Mercer. I will not be supporting it. I am not speaking for the other members of our committee, certainly, but I can tell honourable senators that all of the points that have been brought forward in these amendments were debated and considered at length. We came up with a balance, making some amendments that we felt absolutely had to be made, and including observations that were a critical part of the report for that reason. When we were getting no support from the government side with respect to what we were doing, and in fact were being criticized, it was awfully tempting to go the way of these amendments. However, we did not do that, in the interests of this institution.

The final grouping from Senator Murray involves access to information. In this particular instance, we again debated the concept at length. It is my view that it was important to expand the base of those subject to access to information now, and in fact we expanded the base further in amendment. That is an important aspect of access to information. It is an important facility for Canadians to have this legislation. As long as certain protections are put in place for foundations that are dealing with the private sector, which we have ensured in our amendments, then it seemed more logical to go ahead with the amendments rather than, as has been suggested, to take them all out of Bill C-2 and wait for the review in the House of Commons. The Information Commissioner recommended that that happen, but we were not convinced that we should do so. Therefore, I will not be able to support that bundle of amendments.

The next amendment is a single amendment on page 7 of the Order Paper. It was presented by the Honourable Senator Milne. I was not convinced initially that it was necessary, but there was some concern by the Information Commissioner that the wording in the amendment that we had proposed for the public interest override, that items of national security would not need to be produced under the access to information request, went beyond that section.

To avoid any likelihood that this will be challenged in a court system later on — and that is one of our roles, to try to clarify where we can to avoid court processes and court-made law and judge-made law — we are asking honourable senators to support this amendment to add the words "under this section."

Honourable senators, the next amendment was presented by Senator Andreychuk. We had an interesting debate with respect to what is and what is not a technical amendment. Time does not permit me to analyze this particular matter further, other than to say that this is not the same wording as the amendment that was presented during clause-by-clause consideration. The most important aspect of it is that there was a reference to section 64, which we intended to remove and have removed, but there is also a reference to section 20 and section 31, which in effect said that you can be a senator or a member of the House of Commons and do everything they do except subject to section 20 and section 31, which we felt went to the core of parliamentary privilege. You either can or cannot exercise your parliamentary privilege, and no former senior public office-holder, such as Senator Murray, Senator Carstairs or Senator Fairbairn, can act as a senator. You do not want to be a second-class senator and be subject to two sections of the bill.

With that qualifier removed, we are pleased to support Senator Andreychuk's amendment.

Finally, honourable senators, with respect to the amendments that we will be called upon to consider and vote upon at four o'clock, we have Honourable Senator Nolin's grouping. He explained that well yesterday. It is a question that we debated at the committee. It is a question of whether the proper reference is to a "code pratique" or a "code de pratique," and he has recommended the amendment in the French provisions to call the code a "code de pratique." We accept his amendment.

Honourable senators, today the Senate is under unprecedented scrutiny. The Conservative government has expressed a desire to reform this chamber in a number of ways. I believe that the Senate must be willing to adapt, but it must not abdicate its responsibility.

It would have been easy during our study of Bill C-2 to succumb to the political pressure. We could have treated the study of this bill as it was treated in the other place, but if we had done so we would have fallen into the hands of those who criticize us.

I do not expect that the debate over the role and the relevance of the Senate will conclude in the near future. It is for this reason that we must be more vigilant and more effective in our work than ever before. Our committees must not be deterred by the media or politicians in the other place who are intent on discrediting this institution. Public opinion will be won as long as we continue to perform our duties as a responsible chamber of sober second thought.

Joanna Gualtieri, Director of the Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform, a well-known whistle-blower and former external affairs employee who saved the federal government millions of dollars, by their own admission, appeared before our committee to express her thoughts regarding this legislation and to speak of the important role of the Senate. Let me quote from her testimony:

We genuinely believe that the Senate's finest hour will be found in being proponents of accountability. That will be done by getting back to the drawing board and doing this right.

With the work that we have done, this legislation is now, in my respectful view, honourable senators, in a form that the government can accept. There are no amendments that we have made that fundamentally alter the stated policy initiatives of this legislation. Whether this Conservative government is interested in accepting this bill as amended will depend on its true purpose for the legislation. Does the government seek better policy?

Senator Segal: Yes!

Senator Day: I am sorry I only heard from one person over there.

Or is it only interested in the politics? Honourable senators, we will soon know.

In any event, we in this chamber can be proud of our work. We have been given poor legislation and we have improved upon it. We have been invited time after time to let the debate deteriorate into a political squabble, but we have resisted. We have risen to the occasion by doing what the Senate of Canada does best: study, understand and, where warranted, improve the legislation.

Whatever comes of this bill, we in this chamber can be content that we do have a significant role to play. This bill, more than most, has allowed us to demonstrate that important role. This indeed, honourable senators, has been one of our finest hours, and I congratulate you all.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Murray: Will the honourable senator take a question?

Senator Day: If time permits, I would be pleased to attempt to answer the honourable senator's question.

Senator Murray: Honourable senators, I was not present for the committee hearings, and I may have missed some of the flavour or forcefulness of the testimony by simply reading the printed transcript. However, I must say with regard to the proposed director of public prosecutions and the testimony referring to that, my reading of it was that it was faint praise indeed and of the nature of, "Well, it cannot do any harm, and another set of eyes will be useful," and that kind of thing.

However, the question that I want to ask the honourable senator is whether he would not agree that, in addition to what he regards as the favourable testimony from the witnesses whose names he mentioned, there was, on the other side, also testimony by experienced people wondering aloud whether the position was necessary and, indeed, suggesting — fairly strongly, I thought — that it was not necessary.

I have one other question, and it has to do with the public appointments commission. My amendment would leave it to the government, to the Prime Minister, if they want to go ahead with something like this, recognizing that it is purely cosmetic, and I would leave Parliament out of it. Would the honourable senator not feel better, as I would, if the Prime Minister would content himself with consulting Senator LeBreton and Senator Downe, who together have more experienced in patronage appointments than anyone in the modern history of Canada?

Senator Day: I will deal with the latter question first, and then I will deal with the substantive one after that.

The appointments side of things was debated in this chamber between the honourable senator and Senator Hays yesterday, and the amendment that the committee proposed was brought to his attention. That was our compromise. We felt it was important to be inclusive, and we felt that that was a reasonable provision to put into the director of appointments.

Senator Murray: I think that discussion yesterday was about the budgetary officer.

Senator Day: The director of appointments — and I mentioned this when I was going through the analysis of the honourable senator's various amendments — is not someone who is making the appointments. I think it is important for all honourable senators to understand that. The concept is to ensure that the ministries have set in place an appointments process that meets minimum standards. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach. The appointments will still take place by the ministry in the normal way that you are quite familiar with.

With respect to the director of public prosecutions, I indicated that that was not an easy one for us. The honourable senator is quite right: There was other testimony that suggested that maybe this was not necessary, and that some of the endorsement was not awfully strong. However, some of the endorsement was strong. When the former Chief Justice of Canada, Antonio Lamer, is sitting before you and says that this concept is all right and that it will do no harm and could well do some good, what do we say?

Senator LeBreton: We say: "Yes, sir."

Senator Day: The practitioners, the Association of Criminal Lawyers, were much stronger in support of the concept. These are the people who work in this business every day, and they endorsed the concept. We had a preponderance of evidence in support of the concept, so we tried to make it as good as we could with the tools that we had.

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Would the honourable senator permit a few other questions? I wanted to direct this question to Senator Oliver, but that time has passed.

Senator Oliver and Senator Day both referred several times to Mr. Justice Gomery's report. Senator Oliver said that this bill was to fulfill Justice Gomery's report. Can Senator Day perhaps enlighten us as to what Justice Geometry actually said about this bill as it related to his report?

Senator Day: I hate to be answering questions on behalf of Senator Oliver. I will tell the honourable senator that, during my remarks, I indicated that as recently as two weeks ago, Mr. Justice Geometry said that this particular bill is in no way reflective of his report or his recommendations.

Senator Mercer: Thank you very much. That is exactly what I thought he said.

In Senator Oliver's speech, and in speeches by others as well, there is a reference to ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility is an important thing. If we accept that concept, would it be the honourable senator's interpretation that ministerial responsibility would extend to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as a minister of the Crown? Would she, in this case Senator LeBreton, be responsible for her ministry, which means responsible for her staff and perhaps for the actions of her staff?

Senator Day: I think that is probably a question that would better be posed to other people at another time.

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Senator Day, in his initial remarks, did in fact thank the Senate for adopting the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, along with all of the amendments. I think he also said, "and the observations." As we have been discussing for several days, observations do not form part of the report and are not brought forward here for acceptance by the committee. They are attached after the signature of the chair and therefore do not form part of the report. In essence, this Senate adopted the report and the amendments. Would I be correct in my interpretation?

Senator Day: I know that the honourable senator has an inquiry on that very subject, and I am sure that there will be an interesting debate with diverging points of view on that very issue. I spoke during the committee hearings, and I referred to the observations as being a critical part of our report when we had Minister Baird before us. He undertook to pay close attention not only to the amendments but also to the observations. The practical effect of whether they are before or after the amendments is not as critical as the fact that they will be given due consideration.

Senator Andreychuk: That may be in the honourable senator's dialogue with the minister, but for the conduct of this Senate, which I think is important, and to maintain the integrity of this chamber, would you not agree that they do not form part of the report?

Senator Day: It is my understanding that the report includes the bill as amended with attached observations.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it being 3:30, pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on November 7, I must interrupt the proceedings for the purpose of putting all questions necessary to dispose of third reading of Bill C-2.

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, we have a series of amendments before the Senate. If some are adopted there could be consequences on other amendments that have been proposed. I have consulted with the opposition and we agreed to seek the guidance of the chair as to how best to dispose of the amendments.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, in order to facilitate and simplify the process of voting without distorting in any way the results, we could dispose of the amendments or groups of amendments in the order they were presented. This can be done because there are no conflicts in the amendments that have been proposed except in one case. In addition, there are two cases where amendments overlap others involving the deletion of clauses. Regardless of the outcome, we could proceed with the votes without any procedural difficulties, in the opinion of the chair.

Before amendments are presented, I will advise the Senate of any consequences the adoption of any previous amendments will have made on it so that we can act accordingly. Packages with amendments proposed by senators have been prepared with the assistance of the table and are now being distributed.

With that, honourable senators, we will now proceed with the putting of the questions.

The first question is the motion in amendment proposed by the Honourable Senator Mercer.

Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion in amendment?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those in favour of the motion in amendment please say "yea"?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those opposed to the motion in amendment please say "nay"?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the "nays" have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: Call in the senators. There is a 30-minute bell unless it is agreed otherwise.

For the information of the house, should there be other standing votes there will be no bell. We shall therefore proceed with the vote at five minutes past four.

The sitting of the Senate was resumed.

Motion in amendment of Senator Mercer negatived on the following division:


Atkins Mercer
Cools Moore
Downe Murray
Eggleton Peterson
Furey Rivest—11


Andreychuk Kenny
Angus Keon
Austin LeBreton
Bacon Losier-Cool
Banks Mahovlich
Bryden Milne
Champagne Mitchell
Chaput Munson
Comeau Nancy Ruth
Cook Nolin
Corbin Oliver
Cordy Phalen
Dawson Poy
Day Prud'homme
Di Nino Robichaud
Dyck Segal
Eyton Sibbeston
Fairbairn Smith
Fortier St. Germain
Fox Stollery
Fraser Stratton
Goldstein Tardif
Gustafson Tkachuk
Harb Watt
Hays Zimmer—50


Read More