LifeSite Special Report - Senate Closure Debate on Svend Robinson's Bill C-250 on Tuesday April 27, 2004

Wednesday April 28, 2004

Senate Closure Debate on Svend Robinson's Bill C-250 on Tuesday April 27, 2004 - Part 1

Excerpts of all the sections related to Debate on C-250

See also Acrobat version of the same
(retains much more original Hansard formatting)
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004_docs/C250april2704.pdf

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament,
Volume 141, Issue 33

Tuesday, April 27, 2004
The Honourable Lucie Pépin Speaker pro tempore

The Senate met at 2 p.m., the Hon. the Speaker pro tempore in the Chair.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Question of Privilege

Notice

(First item of the day)
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 43(7) of the Rules of the Senate, I give oral notice that I will rise later this day to raise a question of privilege in respect of events and actions during Senate proceedings on Thursday, April 22, 2004. Earlier today, in accordance with rule 43(3), I gave written notice of the same to the Clerk of the Senate.

Honourable senators, I would be asking the Speaker of the Senate to make a finding of prima facie privilege. If Her Honour so finds, I am prepared to move the necessary motion.

(1410)

Protecting Freedoms in a Democratic Society

Hon. W. David Angus: Honourable senators, I would like to draw your attention to the following statement from the noted U.S. philosopher, linguist and civil libertarian Noam Chomsky:

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

Protecting freedoms in a democratic society does not mean defending only the voices that are pleasing and acceptable to us; protecting freedoms begins with the defence of those voices most despised and despicable. It is upon this principle that our free and democratic society is based and it is upon this principle that we, I submit, must govern.

The trouble with fighting for human rights and freedoms is that it begins with the difficult task of opposing the oppressive laws that are first aimed at silencing those who hold opinions with which we disagree. We, as legislators — I again respectfully submit — must keep in mind these principles when considering legislation and make our decisions accordingly. Sometimes the path that seems to be the easiest and the most correct by limiting hateful speech will ultimately limit speech for all.

As former British Lord Chief Justice Hailsham, late member of the House of Lords asserted:

The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others, who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty.

Honourable senators, I would encourage us all to keep these principles in mind today and tomorrow when we go through our orders of business. In this regard, I simply would remind senators of the following words in section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1977. Section 2 says, in part:

...all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

The fundamental question is, honourable senators, do we prefer to live in a society that is so rigid and law-based that there is no room for diversity or flexibility, where no person can speak their mind and exercise their democratic freedoms? Or, would we rather live in a society that fosters diversity of opinion, allows freedom and liberty, but also leaves room for anticipated abuse as stated by Lord Hailsham?

The Hon. The Speaker pro tempore: I regret to inform the honourable senator that his time has expired.
____________________________________________________________________________

The Senate

Effect of Motion to Dispose of Bill C-250

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, last Wednesday, a senator introduced in this chamber an extraordinary motion. It was coupled with the motion on the previous question by another senator, a motion of closure that is even more draconian than the closure motion normally introduced by the government in this chamber, which limits the time of debate.

In the government motion, there is a period of time to debate the time limitation, namely two and a half hours. Then there is a provision, if it passes, for another six hours of debate before the question is put.

The motion, which is on the Order Paper today, is probably the result of frustration felt by the senator and on behalf of others that a bill, which they vociferously support, has not yet been put to a vote. Those of us who are perceived as holding up the vote on this bill represent a minority in this chamber, but I dare say close to a majority, if not a majority, in this country if the facts were known.

There is fear that an election will be called and that this bill will die on the Order Paper. I have no influence over that. Since none of us here can call this election, none of us has the power to make that decision, although there are those here who may be more influential. I only know, as a senator, that rules protect the minority. The last time I looked, the good senator who introduced this instrument was also a member of a minority group whose major instrument and friend in this place for him to state his case, outside of his own learned ability, are the rules that he has so transfigured by the introduction of this instrument. While they may be helpful to him in his cause now, he has taken upon himself to initiate a rule over which the government in the past has exercised a monopoly, because there is no doubt in this place that his view of this bill is the majority view, with the voters of this country having no recourse to his privileged position. After all, the government minister is indirectly responsible and, therefore, there is some accountability for their actions.

Senator St. Germain: Hear, hear!

Senator Tkachuk: He has reduced this place to mob rule, where major opinion will now have the sledgehammer effect of crushing minority opinion, without any recourse by the public.

Senator St. Germain: Shame.

Senator Tkachuk: This form of elitism will do extreme damage to this institution if it is ever contemplated. The problem for the proponents of this bill is not that we have, by amendment, forced the debate to continue a little longer, rather, they are concerned about an election call effectively killing this bill for the time being. God forbid that we might have to debate this issue in the body politic. This action on the bill, imposed on the Senate for a period of seven whole days, can hardly be called a filibuster.
_____________________________________________________________________

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Fisheries and Oceans

Committee Authorized to meet During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I was struck that Senator Comeau, in response to Senator Corbin, said that the regular meeting time of his committee is seven o'clock. What information does Senator Comeau have that I do not have that we might be sitting tonight at seven o'clock?

When I look at the Order Paper, frankly, I can see a dearth of government business. We have been told that we may be sitting well into May before the election is called. In my view, we should not be sitting at all. What information does Senator Comeau have that I do not have that we may be sitting this evening at seven o'clock, doing business, when there is no government business before us? As a matter of fact, the Senate should adjourn and wait for the Prime Minister to ask the Governor General to call the election.
I refuse to say that the Prime Minister calls the election. The election call is a prerogative act of Her Majesty.

If the honourable senator would share that information, then we would all have the same information and we would be inclusive and democratic.

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, my motion takes advantage of the fact that we had asked permission of the Senate to revert to Notices of Motions. I am taking advantage of the timing of the motion as proposed by the Honourable Senator Oliver. Quite often on Tuesdays we do sit past six o'clock. I am simply taking advantage of the opportunity.

Senator Cools: The honourable senator was asking that the Senate suspend its rules to oblige his motion on a whim. He is saying that there is nothing concrete before him.
_________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaPierre, for the third reading of Bill C-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda),

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator St. Germain, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that the bill be not now read a third time but that it be amended, on page 1, in clause 1, by replacing lines 8 and 9 with the following:

"by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sex.".

On the subamendment of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, that the motion in amendment be amended by adding, before the
words "ethnic origin," the words "mental or physical disability,".

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is now 5:15 p.m. Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on April 22, 2004, I must interrupt the proceedings in order to put the question on the subamendment to Bill C-250 moved by Senator Cools.

The bells will ring for 15 minutes and the vote will be taken at 5:30 p.m.

[English]

I would advise honourable senators that, following the vote on the subamendment of Senator Cools, we will then proceed immediately to the vote on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal on the previous question that was moved regarding the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray.

If this motion carries, we will proceed to the motion of Senator Murray.

Following that, we will proceed to the motion for the third reading of Bill C-7.

Call in the senators.

(1730)

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Comeau Lynch-Staunton
Cools St. Germain
Di Nino Stratton
Eyton Tkachuk—9
Kelleher

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams Hervieux-Payette
Atkins Hubley
Austin Jaffer
Bacon Joyal
Banks Kroft
Biron Lapointe
Bryden Lavigne
Callbeck Léger
Carstairs Losier-Cool
Chaput Maheu
Christensen Massicotte
Cook Mercer
Corbin Morin
Day Munson
Downe Murray
Fairbairn Pearson
Ferretti Barth Phalen
Finnerty Ringuette
Fraser Robichaud
Furey Rompkey
Gauthier Smith
Gill Spivak
Graham Stollery
Harb Watt—48

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Sibbeston—1

The Senate

Criminal Code—Motion to Dispose of Bill C-250 Adopted

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:

That it be an Order of the Senate that on the first sitting day following the adoption of this motion, at 3:00 p.m., the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then underway; and all questions necessary to dispose of third reading of Bill C- 250, to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda) shall be put forthwith without further adjournment, debate or amendment; and that any vote to dispose of Bill C-250 shall not be deferred; and

That, if a standing vote is requested, the bells to call in the Senators be sounded for fifteen minutes, after which the Senate shall proceed to take each vote successively as required without the further ringing of the bells.
On the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Maheu, that the original question be now put.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, the next question is on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, seconded by the Honourable Senator Maheu, that the original question be now put.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams Hervieux-Payette
Atkins Hubley
Austin Jaffer
Bacon Joyal
Banks Kroft
Biron Lapointe
Bryden Lavigne
Callbeck Léger
Carstairs Losier-Cool
Chaput Maheu
Christensen Massicotte
Cook Mercer
Corbin Morin
Day Munson
Downe Murray
Fairbairn Pearson
Ferretti Barth Phalen
Finnerty Ringuette
Fraser Robichaud
Furey Rompkey
Gauthier Smith
Gill Spivak
Graham Stollery
Harb Watt—48

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Cochrane Lynch-Staunton
Comeau Sibbeston
Cools St. Germain
Di Nino Stratton
Eyton Tkachuk—11
Kelleher

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

(1740)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The question is now on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal:

That it be an Order of the Senate that on the first sitting day following the adoption of this motion, at 3:00 p.m., the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then underway; and all questions necessary to dispose of third reading of Bill C- 250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda) shall be put forthwith without further adjournment, debate or amendment; and that any vote to dispose of Bill C-250 should not be deferred; and

That, if a standing vote is requested, the bells to call in the Senators be sounded for fifteen minutes, after which the Senate shall proceed to take each vote successively as required without the further ringing of the bells.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Point of order. I have said it three or four or five times.

Honourable senators, I have a point of order. You cannot do this, Your Honour.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is there agreement to hear the point of order now?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Senator Cools: No agreement is needed. This is a point of order.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams Hervieux-Payette
Atkins Hubley
Austin Jaffer
Bacon Joyal
Banks Kroft
Biron Lapointe
Bryden Lavigne
Callbeck Léger
Carstairs Losier-Cool
Chaput Maheu
Christensen Massicotte
Cook Mercer
Corbin Morin
Day Munson
Downe Murray
Fairbairn Pearson
Ferretti Barth Phalen
Finnerty Ringuette
Fraser Robichaud
Furey Rompkey
Gauthier Smith
Gill Spivak
Graham Stollery
Harb Watt—48

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Cochrane Lynch-Staunton
Comeau Oliver
Di Nino Sibbeston
Eyton St. Germain
Kelleher Stratton
Lawson Tkachuk—12

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Cools—1

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I should like to state my reason for abstaining. What was before us was two votes, by order of the Senate of a few days ago. This motion was never agreed —

Some Hon. Senators: Order.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: When the Speaker's attention has been called to a breach of order during a division, the division will proceed and the Speaker will deal with the matter when the division is completed.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of order, which is, I hope, a point of clarification. We had an incident earlier this afternoon when one of our senators was challenged and it was indicated that he would not be allowed to vote. Exactly the same situation happened a few minutes ago for Senator Oliver.

My point is this: I think we need clarity in this chamber. The clarity should be, in my view — others are free to disagree — that once the Speaker has risen and has begun to read the motion, then anyone who enters the chamber at that point is ineligible to vote.

Hon. Terry Stratton: The rule clearly states that a senator must be beyond the bar prior to the question being put. The rule is quite clear. I would agree with the senator, but the rule is quite clear.

Senator Carstairs: It is not that the rule is not clear; it is that there does not seem to be clarity in the understanding of senators as to what the rule means. In my view, the rule means that once the Speaker has risen and begins to speak, no one else can vote who then enters the chamber.

In fairness to Senator Oliver and in fairness to Senator Harb, seeing as we accepted Senator Harb's vote earlier this afternoon, we therefore must accept Senator Oliver's vote on this matter. Let us be clear in the future.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: This is an important question and it will be taken up with the Speaker's Advisory Committee.

Hon. Mac Harb: Honourable senators, I wanted to make absolutely clear, while we are reviewing this matter, at page 71 of the Rules of the Senate in Canada, rule 68(1) states:

A Senator may not vote on any question unless the Senator is within the Bar of the Senate when the question is put.

Your Honour, I would submit that both Senator Oliver and myself were within the bar when the question was put. Therefore, both Senator Oliver and myself followed the Rules of the Senate of Canada.

Having said that, I was told clearly by the briefing note when I came here, as well as in other documents, that a question is put once the Speaker has clearly called the yeas and the nays. For as long as the Speaker is in the process of reading the question, the question is not yet put. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I would say that both Senator Oliver and myself, under the present rules, were within our rights to vote.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The question will be reviewed by the Speaker's Advisory Committee.

Senator Cools: Your Honour, a point of order was raised. There is no authority for you to refer that to any Speaker's Advisory Committee or any other committee. You are required to respond to what was said here.

(1750)

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I must admit how very disappointed I am at what we are hearing today and at the actions taken.

I was watching when you asked your question — I clearly saw you — and I saw Senator Oliver come in behind your seat. When a senator, who is not a newcomer, abuses the rules, the Rules of the Senate prevail, in my opinion. I agree with Senator Carstairs that, at some point, a decision must be made and made once and for all. In my opinion, Senator Oliver was not entitled to vote.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, the Speaker of the Senate has the power to make rules for the Senate. The Speaker's power in this place is extremely circumscribed.

Senator Harb put the rule on the record here in French. I would like to put it in English. Rule 68.1 states:

A Senator shall not vote on any question unless the Senator is within the Bar of the Senate when the question is put.

That is very interesting. It does not say, "...unless the senator is in his seat or her seat." It states, "...when the question is put." It does not state, "...when the Speaker rises to speak or to put the question."

Senator Carstairs' interpretation is almost correct. She is confusing the putting of the question with the phenomenon of the rising to put the question. In other words, the rule does not say, "...unless the senator is within the Bar of the Senate when the speaker rises to put the question."

It is not up to Her Honour to clarify these rules. It is not her job to do that.
In point of fact, according to Senator Harb's interpretation — if I were he, I would be more cautious than not — the question is not put until the Speaker has completed her sentence. That is when it is put. If the rule intended it to be different, the rule would have made that clear. There are many other rules that speak to when the Speaker is on his feet, rising, sitting and so on.

I was just handed something with the headline, "Putting the Question." I do not know where this comes from. Senator Harb has just handed it to me. It may be part of some notes that are given to new senators. There is a category headed, "Votes," and, within that category is a headline, "Putting the Question." The document states that, when the Senate is ready to vote, the Speaker may read the motion in its entirety, so that there is no doubt about which motion is about to be voted upon. Then the Speaker says: "Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?" This constitutes putting the question. In some cases, the text of a motion can be very long.

The document goes on and on. There is much ground for Senator Harb's interpretation. Senator Lavigne is asking a profound question: How can you vote if you do not know what the question is? Senators do it every day. Members of the House of Commons do it every day, so that it is not perplexing.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I will discuss this matter with the Speaker's Advisory Committee. Let us move on.

Hon. Jean Lapointe: Honourable senators, if it had been a very close vote, I would understand. However, I think we are wasting an incredible amount of time every time Senator Cools rises on a point of order. I appreciate Senator's Cools competence; she knows the Rules of the Senate by heart. Had I been here since 1984, I would know them that well too. However, in my opinion, all her points of order are a terrible waste of the Senate's time.
________________________________________________________________________

Question of Privilege

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it being eight o'clock, pursuant to rule 43(8), the Senate shall now take up consideration of the question of privilege of Senator Cools, who gave oral notice earlier this day.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, where are we on the Order Paper? I thought that when the sitting was suspended we were debating Bill S-9, to honour Louis Riel and the Metis. That was my understanding. Perhaps Her Honour could clarify.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Chaput finished speaking to Bill S-9.

Senator Cools: Did someone take the adjournment? I was under the impression that Senator Maheu was about to put a question to Senator Chaput.

An Hon. Senator: Debate was adjourned.

Senator Cools: We adjourned debate? Very well.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, rule 43(8) of the Rules of the Senate states:

Except as provided in section (9) below, the Senate shall take up consideration of whether the circumstances constitute a question of privilege at no later than 8:00 o'clock p.m., or immediately after the Senate has completed consideration of the Orders of the Day for that sitting, whichever comes first.
Senator Cools, please proceed.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, with apologies, my earpiece is not working. I have had to change it already today but it pops in and out. I do not want to dismay honourable senators but I truly did not hear what Her Honour said.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: If the honourable senator did not hear what I said, perhaps she could read rule 43(8) on page 47 of the Rules of the Senate. That is what I just read to the house.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I rise today on a question of privilege in respect of events and actions during Senate proceedings on Thursday, April 22, 2004. If ever there were a democratic deficit, the events in this chamber recently on Bill C- 250 certainly have proven that. I speak in particular to the manner of the prosecution of Bill C-250. A marked feature of the prosecution of this bill has been its constant truncation of debate and its considerable anomalies and sometimes irregularities. In addition, this bill has been driven by government support, although it is a private member's bill.

Honourable senators, I speak to what I consider to be a pernicious exercise of power, which is inconsistent with parliamentary principles, practices and Senate rules. I refer specifically to the dual motions of Senator Murray and Senator Joyal: one being the guillotine motion and the other being the closure motion, known as the motion to put the previous question, which was the original closure motion. The other motion developed as a result of that.

Honourable senators, in a funny way I am asking the Speaker pro tempore to adjudicate a question that involves her because she is currently in the Chair as I raise this question of privilege. The rule under which I raise this question of privilege calls upon Her Honour to make a finding of prima facie privilege. Honourable senators will know that a prima facie finding is not a finding or ruling of privilege. The finding of a breach of privilege rests with the entire chamber. Many senators now believe that it is the Speaker who rules on that because the prima facie ruling has come to take on a role for which it was never intended when the rules were created.

(2010)

In fact, Her Honour's decision has to do essentially with making a declaration as to whether there is an appearance of a breach of privilege — the first blush of a breach — and then to allow a motion to be moved, which will then take precedence over the other business of the Senate. That is the sole role of the Speaker of the Senate — it seems not widely understood — to decide whether or not that motion should take precedence over anything else.

Honourable senators, I will be asserting that the Speaker pro tempore, in allowing Senator Murray's motion to proceed, was simultaneously disallowing any debate on that motion by recognizing Senator Joyal as the first speaker, even though the opposition leader, Senator Lynch-Staunton, and other senators, including myself, had risen before Senator Joyal. This is a breach of the privileges of the Senate. The Senate Speaker is given no power by the Senate's rules or by the Senate's constitution to do such things, particularly the compulsion of the Senate to accept a guillotine motion from a private member, a motion that can only be properly moved by a minister of the Crown, and further, to accept this guillotine motion in combination with a closure motion, being the previous question. These two motions were moved as a duet of some kind, a diabolical combination and so improper as to be devastating.

Honourable senators, these kinds of questions, either for the previous question or for the guillotine motion, have always been considered to be most exceptional procedures. The house has always been reluctant to accept such motions, save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the house. The proper conduct of the business of this house was never in doubt, and those mechanisms should not have been resorted to or even entertained or countenanced.

Honourable senators, I would like to put a quotation on the record by one of the great grandfathers or forefathers of liberalism in Ontario, William Lyon Mackenzie. He was the grandfather of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and a member of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada. He made a very famous statement that has remained current, I think, in the business of politics and in the business of chambers and the operation of houses. This quotation is found in Margaret Fairley's book entitled The Selected Writings of William Lyon Mackenzie, 1824 to 1837. Senators must know that I made it my business to look very clearly at the history of liberalism, particularly in Ontario, and the role of that group that was called the Reformers, who became the Clear Grits, who later became the Liberals, and the work of William Warren Baldwin, Robert Baldwin, William Lyon Mackenzie, and my great hero, of course, George Brown.

William Lyon Mackenzie said the following about the business of the exercise of power, because parliaments and systems of governance must always be attentive to the proper exercise of power. In a petition to Her Majesty, he said:

...for there is not now, neither has there ever been in this province, any real constitutional check upon the natural disposition of men in the possession of power to promote their own partial views and interests at the expense of the interests of the great body of the people.

Honourable senators, the exercise of power is something that should be done with great diligence and to attend to what I would consider the principles of the entire system and also to the protection of the rights of all to participate in debate and to move the debate forward in a meaningful and pure way.

Honourable senators, I would like to speak about the role of the Speaker of the Senate. The Speaker's role in respect of Senate proceedings is extremely limited and extremely circumscribed. In addition, senators should expect impartiality and fairness from their Speaker.

It is of interest that these matters have been well canvassed in the past. I remember some time ago that we had enormous difficulty and problems with a particular Speaker, and it was a very awful experience. It hurt him deeply and hurt us all deeply.

However, in point of fact, I would like to show how the constitution of the Senate treats the Speaker in a very circumscribed way and limits and circumscribes those powers of the Speaker in a very particular way. To show this, I would also like to put a couple of quotations on the record. Beauchesne's 6th edition, paragraph 171, states:

Foremost among many responsibilities, the Speaker has the duty to maintain an orderly conduct of debate by repressing disorder when it arises, by refusing to propose the question upon motions and amendments which are irregular, and by calling the attention of the House to bills which are out of order.
This paragraph refers to the Speaker in the House of Commons, but I would submit that it stands very well in this chamber. The fact is that the Speaker has a duty not to put motions to the chamber that are irregular, and it is a role to be exercised.

I support that citation by citing a statement from Palgrave. He may not be familiar to many senators, but I quote Sir Reginald Palgrave in something called The Chairman's Handbook. He says the following at page 5:

A Chairman is bound to decline to put from the Chair a Motion or Amendment which is out of Order — as being beyond the scope of the Meeting, or foreign to the purpose for which it is called together...

Very clearly, we have some strong opinions on that point.

Palgrave, again in respect of this matter, states the following at page 7:
...a Chairman is entitled to claim the united and prompt support of those over whom he presides. But to be so entitled, he must strictly obey the governing principle of chairmanship, namely absolute impartiality. He must bear in mind that the ordinary functions of a chairman are essentially ministerial. A Chairman, therefore, if he rises to address a meeting; he does not speak as a member of the meeting...

He goes on and on about the proper role and conduct of a chairman.

I put these matters on the record, honourable senators, because if we were to look to rule 18(1) of the Rules of the Senate rules, we see that when the Senate Speaker speaks or makes a ruling, he or she is supposed to rely on some authority and on precedents and to cite rules. Rule 18(2) provides that:

The Speaker shall decide points of order and when so doing shall state the reasons for the decision together with references to the rule or other written authority applicable to the case.

For example, last Thursday in that ruling, no such thing applied. As a matter of fact, we heard something about a hypothetical situation and no citation was made as to which rules or what parliamentary authorities were being relied on, so it is a very interesting phenomenon.

I am trying to say, honourable senators, that the Speaker of the Senate is not the chamber's man or woman as is the House of Commons Speaker. The Speaker of the Senate is the Queen's person and so exists in a different relationship to members of the Senate.

Continuing in the same vein that the Speaker should protect the house from motions that are unusual or irregular, particularly questions of closure and guillotine, which are exceptional procedures, I would like to quote Lord Campion in his book, An Introduction to the Procedures of the House of Commons.

(2020)

Lord Campion is a former Clerk of the U.K. House of Commons who became a member of the House of Lords, which is a rare and interesting experience. On this question, Lord Campion says, talking about the Speaker putting these kinds of motions before the chamber:

It lies in the discretion of the Chair to "refuse the closure if in his opinion the motion is an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority."

In other words, the Speaker has a power to decline to put closure motions if they are an abuse of the rules of the house.

I want to show honourable senators that those two motions were not only an abuse of the house but also breaches of our privileges. Lord Campion is supported, honourable senators, by Erskine May, or vice versa, depending on who died first. Erskine May, twenty-second edition, at page 407, said very clearly the following:

That question must be put forthwith,

— meaning a previous question,

— without amendment or debate, unless it appears to the Chair that the motion is an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority. The discretionary power of the Chair to protect the rights of the minority by refusing the closure is frequently exercised.

Therefore, honourable senators, a fair degree of consideration has been given to this phenomenon of Speakers willy-nilly putting these kinds of motions to the chamber, but what is unthinkable and unheard of is the Speaker's active cooperation with the movers of such motions to place them before the house, and that is the question, honourable senators, that I am asking Her Honour to rule on. I contend, honourable senators, that those motions were put without impartiality, without objectivity and without proper consideration, and the result is that the Speaker countenanced those motions which, to my mind, are grossly improper and grossly dictatorial. That is the notion of closure and the guillotine motions. These motions are supposed to be used in exceptional circumstances.

In addition to that, when they are being used, the minister must always prove that there is an urgency, that there is a kind of emergency happening, that there has been prolonged obstruction or some such thing and, in addition, that the public interest demands that these bills be passed.

Of interest on this bill, honourable senators, is that there is no public support for it. The support is here on the Hill. If you look at the applications of witnesses who wanted to appear before the committee, you will see that five were in favour of the bill, 2,164 were opposed to the bill, and 190 did not declare or state their position. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the number of those who did not state their position divided into the same ratio. You would be dealing with about 2,300 against and half a dozen or seven in favour of the passage of the bill. I think that should give us serious pause to consider the situation.

Honourable senators, I come to the point now that I think is especially critical. Senator Murray moved that motion which was countenanced by the Senate Speaker pro tempore. I should like to say to honourable senators that there is no power either in the Rules of the Senate or in the House of Commons for a private member to move a guillotine motion. It is so well articulated, because our rules, which did not exist in their present form till some years ago, demonstrate that very clearly. Senate rules 38 and 39 are clear that there is no base in the Senate rules for such an action, that it is the preserve of the Crown in dealing with such matters as the financial initiatives of the Crown, a Royal Recommendation and so on. The power of private members to move a guillotine motion or time allocation motion is just not there. That power is reserved exclusively to a minister of the Crown.

Trust me, senators, this is a very serious matter, and I would submit a serious democratic deficit. I would submit, honourable senators, that these kinds of motions and these kinds of actions undermine public respect for the Senate. I do a lot of speaking, and I travel a lot in this country, and I constantly have to face the Senate's reputation and I constantly try to uplift it. Honourable senators, this kind of activity does not support a healthy public perception at this time, particularly when the Liberals and Mr. Martin are plummeting downwards in public support. This does not help at all, honourable senators, and I think Her Honour should bear that in mind.

Unlike the previous question, which is the original closure motion, a previous question can be moved by a private member but not a guillotine motion. I can find support, for example, in Beauchesne's, sixth edition, who in paragraph 518 speaks to the closure rule in the House of Commons which says:

The closure rule in Standing Order 57 permits a Minister to move a motion intended to bring debate on any question to an end with the House deciding that question under consideration.

It clearly states that a "Minister," and if you read through the literature, there is reference to "governments" and a "Minister."

If one were then to look to Marlowe and Montpetit, one would also see, for example, on page 563, under time allocation,

... it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate. While it has become the most used mechanism to curtail debate, time allocation remains a means of bringing parties together to negotiate an acceptable distribution of the time of the House.

It is very interesting, except this was not a battle between the opposition and the government; this was a private member's bill., I keep coming back to the principle that, if government supporters and government members and the government so wanted this bill, then the bill should have been proceeded with under the phenomenon of ministerial responsibility, with the government taking clear responsibility and answering to the public for it, because the government here has insisted that it is not a party to this. Yet, I have noticed the quarterback on the bill seems to be Senator Robichaud, the former Deputy Leader of the Government. Yes, you can go through the record. I can prove this,

Senator Robichaud. I can prove it. You are crying now.

Senator Robichaud: Really.

Senator Cools: Do not cry. I will come and wipe your tears.

Senator Robichaud: I do not want you near me.

Senator Cools: That is obvious.

Senator Robichaud: Yes.

Senator Cools: I hope that shows up on the record. It is pretty obvious. I am glad Senator Robichaud said it. He does not want me near him. Ask him to repeat it. Perhaps he will have the nerve to stand up and put it on the floor of the chamber.

I was saying, honourable senators, that Marleau and Montpetit tell us that this is also supported by many of the writers on these subject matters, Campion, Redlich, May and so on.

When this was allowed to go forward and points of order were attempted to be raised, they were not allowed by Her Honour in the first place, and the record of last Thursday shows enormous confusion and it is very bewildering, to say the least. Interestingly, honourable senators, the Senate's rules 38 and 39 are crystal clear. Outside of that, there is no power within any rule of the Senate for a private member to move a guillotine motion.

(2030)

I am very disappointed and saddened by the fact that the Speaker of the Senate countenanced such a motion and, in actual fact, lent the both of them her support.

Honourable senators, I should like to come, then, to what I am asking Her Honour to do. This is a most interesting phenomenon. What we have here is that a person is being a judge in a case that involves her.

The way our business on privilege has been so structured, that is unavoidable. The practices of Parliament are very clear, that, at any given moment, if the Speaker has said something that is out of order, that can be raised in another point of order. I am not speaking about appeals of rulings, which are completely different, but the fact of the matter is that the Speaker is always subject to the house and not only to appeals of rulings. The notion is that the Speaker is subject to the rules of the house and is bound by the same rules.

What I am asking in this bizarre situation in which I find myself is that I feel that Her Honour breached the privileges of the Senate last Thursday, in that she allowed debate on a bill to be seriously truncated. I should also like to suggest, honourable senators, that this sort of thing has happened several times in this debate. It is not unusual. The committee hearings were truncated and cut short. The debate at second reading was cut short.

Honourable senators, I should like to cite page 329 of the Debates of the Senate of February 20, 2004, where, with the then Speaker sitting in the chair, my right to speak to Bill C-250 at second reading was denied. I was on my feet, trying to speak. The Speaker moved right to the question at Senator Robichaud's behest. That is a case where the question was used as a mini-form of closure. This has happened all the way through this debate, the moving of adjournments and the calling for the question to be put. In this case, on February 20, the Speaker very diligently obeyed and put the question and denied me my opportunity to speak at second reading.

The proper role of the Speaker, Your Honour, is for the Speaker to ensure that senators have an opportunity to speak. It leaves a questionable thought as to what the real function of the Senate is and whether or not it is serving the public well.

I have seen a lot in the last few days. I have been here a few years. This place will have to address the question of its own relevance to this country and to politics in this nation, because what we are being told again and again is that the Senate is not a place for debate, that the Senate is not a place to bring forth issues and ideas, that the Senate is not a place to question government initiatives or to uphold the grand principles of ministerial government in this country and that what we should do, basically, is vote without any kind of debate and vote as we are told to. If we do not do what we are told, then we can expect a fair amount of brutishness, brutality and cruelty.

Honourable senators, we will have to look at this and do some introspection. It is becoming increasingly hard to defend these bills that are coming through faster and faster and with very little debate. I did not come to the Senate to do that. I came here to play a full role as a parliamentarian in this country in terms of weighing and studying proposed legislation. If I err, I err on the side of earnestness.

I know many senators scorn and laugh at me because I am always talking about this principle and that principle and saying that we should do things properly and try harder.

When I was on the National Parole Board and I tried to be a good parole board member, and tried to read every single case, I remember I used to be questioned that way. Honourable senators know the whole thing about Gresham's law and the lower standard prevailing. Thank you very much, honourable senators, I choose the higher standard. I always have and I always will. I do not think that I can alter that. That is as natural to me as the colour of my skin.

Honourable senators, in closing, I should like to ask Her Honour to make a ruling on what I have raised. I am asking her to make a prima facie ruling — which is exactly where I began — that she has breached the Senate privileges in countenancing those motions and in lending support, whether it was acknowledging Senator Joyal over Senator Lynch-Staunton or other senators, who were clearly on their feet before Senator Joyal rose. I was on my feet. I saw him rise. Senator Lynch-Staunton was on his feet and others.

The practice in this place is that, when senators rise, the Speaker goes to those with precedence, being the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Leader of the Opposition. I was not too happy when that practice was not followed.

In any event, I maintain that there is a breach of privilege here. I am not asking Her Honour to make a finding of whether or not there is a breach of privilege here. I am asking her to make a finding that there is a prima facie case which is at least worthy of the issue and the matter going forth in this chamber for a debate on the motion I shall move. The real debate should always take place on that motion, and not on the prima facie question.

Honourable senators, the practices and the rules here are constructed in such a way that that the Speaker is a judge in his or her own cause. I do not know any other way around that. It is very unfortunate that we are in this position, but I do say to honourable senators that I do not think it is good for the Senate that those motions were prosecuted in the way that they were. I think we will see the day when we deeply regret it, because I submit that what goes around comes around.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I wish to take advantage of Senator Cools' question of privilege to also deplore the fact that we have engaged here in the last few hours in a procedure that I believe we will learn to regret. That is, that one senator, for whatever reason, decided on his own to impose a closure motion. That is unheard of. I speak here of the closure motion, not a motion for time allocation, not a motion to give us an opportunity to debate a certain item within a certain time frame, but, in effect, a guillotine. That in itself was bad enough.

What followed after that senator's intervention was the motion of Senator Joyal to move the previous question. We never had the opportunity to debate Senator Murray's motion. I feel that my privilege has been affected by that, as one responsible for debating, arguing and for getting information on whatever issue.
First, there was a limitation on debate, then an inability to debate the motion. That is unprecedented. My privileges and those of all colleagues, however they feel about the bill that led to Senator Murray's motion — regardless of our feelings, the point is not the bill; the point is what we have accepted in two votes before six o'clock.

I would ask Her Honour, in assessing Senator Cools' question of privilege and my intervention, which I am hopeful is shared by others, to at least rule that there is a privilege here that has been challenged, questioned and should be respected more than it is. Otherwise it would mean, if Senator Murray's and Senator Joyal's tactics are accepted, that we can just limit debate on any item, at any time, on anything, whenever two individuals feel like it.

(2040)

I would hope that Her Honour would take that into consideration. I will stop there.

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I, too, have a concern. My concern is that, when sitting in the position I occupy in the Senate chamber, I saw both Senator Lynch-Staunton and Senator Tkachuk rise before Senator Joyal.

Whether the Speaker pro tempore sought advice from the Table or whether something else took place, I do not know, but I clearly saw that, and that to me is a concern if the tradition in this place is that the Leader of the Opposition should have been recognized, or the first person to stand should have been recognized. These two people did rise before Senator Joyal.

Honourable senators, I am also concerned about the fact that there was no opportunity to debate Senator Murray's motion. If two members can just rise and call for closure on a motion, that could have a serious impact on this place and how we operate. I noted that concern on the night of the debate.

Closure has always been, from the time I was in the other place until I came here, something that was used in a rare circumstance. It is a use of power over the minority, and minority rights have always been respected in our parliamentary system. If we fail to recognize that and fail to respect it, I do not know what will happen to an institution like this, or how we can carry on our business in the future, because this sets a precedent.

Honourable senators, I know that the job of the Speaker pro tempore is challenging. It is an onerous job, but when she is considering this point of privilege, I hope she will give serious consideration, which I am sure she will, to what we are trying to point out here this evening.

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I, too, would like to add a few words in support of Senator Lynch-Staunton's position on this.

Over the last few years, more and more people have been questioning the validity, the importance and the value of this institution. What we have here is, in effect, an abuse of the rules that exist. I do not think that the rules to allow for time allocation were ever meant to deal with a private member's bill. As offensive as most honourable senators find it whenever it is used on either side — whichever government happens to be in power — one can at least justify its use under the notion that the opposition is holding up government legislation. It is an issue that the government has decided to stake its reputation on by producing a public document, a bill, which will be debated in Parliament, and then the electorate, the citizens, will make a pronouncement on whether that is acceptable or not.

We have raised a most serious here by allowing this procedure on a private member's bill, of whatever value, on whatever side of the issue one might be. I believe it is a mistake and we should not have allowed it. I hope that Her Honour and her advisers will take that seriously because I feel it will impact on a permanent basis on this institution, and we could be held to ransom by a small group of people who wish to push a particular agenda, which is not a government agenda, which is not an item on which an election can be fought where, in effect, you must go to the electorate and ask whether it is right or wrong. This does not happen with respect to a private member's bill.

Honourable senators, I think we made a mistake. If we can correct it, we should try to do that.

Hon. Serge Joyal: Honourable senators, let me say that I challenge the statement made by Senator St. Germain that I was up on my feet after Senator Lynch-Staunton and after Senator Cools. That is not the case. I challenge the honourable senator on this because I was listening attentively to Senator Murray's statement for an obvious reason. I had a vested interest, directly, in what he was saying. I stood here, behind my seat, and I got the attention of the Speaker and the Speaker recognized me.

Once I had been recognized, then Senator Cools started to try to get the attention of the Speaker and then Senator Lynch- Staunton. That is how it happened.

Senator St. Germain: For clarification —

Senator Joyal: I am sorry, senator — I would point out to Her Honour that I listened to the honourable senator.

Senator St. Germain: Senator Joyal challenged me and I never mentioned Senator Cools. I mentioned Senator Tkachuk. Perhaps he should get his points straight.
Senator Joyal: I was ready to listen to any other senator. I can give my version of the events. The honourable senator gave his version of the situation and I am allowed to give mine because I am being challenged directly.

Honourable senators, there is no provision in the rules that a motion, as introduced by Senator Murray, has to be put forward by a minister of the Crown, as stated by Senator Cools. If that were the case, we would be able to find one simple paragraph or one simple line to that effect. That does not exist in our rules. Therefore, I cannot concur with the first point made by Senator Cools.

On the second point that the integrity of the Speaker is being questioned because Her Honour would be the judge and a party in her own case, it is up to any senator who is not happy with a decision of the Speaker to challenge and call upon the Speaker's decision and have it submitted to a vote. It has happened before. I have seen it. I do not want to identify any senator here, but I have seen it happen We voted and we made the decision to either uphold or to reverse the decision of the Speaker. Honourable senators, we must maintain the integrity of the position of the Speaker. That is a fundamental factor in how debates should be conducted in this chamber.

On the next point, when the previous question is called or is put forward, there is a specific rule in the Senate, 48(2), which provides for how that should happen and what should be done. What has been followed by the Speakers is what is stated in rule 48(2). If a senator is unhappy — as is our right, not to be happy with what happened — and the rules require to be changed, then there are ways to change the rules other than to raise a question of privilege.

That would be trying to do what Senator Carstairs did some weeks ago. She wanted to change the rules and she moved a motion to change the rules, but not through the door of a question of privilege.

If honourable senators are unhappy with how we debate a private member's bill we can make changes. I am of the opinion that a private member's bill, either originating from this side or from the other side, should, by rights, be able to be put to a vote at a point of time and not only be the object of delaying tactics. If we believe that our rules do not provide for that, there is a way to address this issue, which is through a motion to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, which study the issue and report back to this chamber.

Senator Stratton: You refused that.

Senator Joyal: I would be the first one to be open to discuss this, but not through the cloak or the title of question of privilege. I do not think it should be done that way, and I do not think that there is any question of privilege in relation to what Senator Cools has said.

(2050)

Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, for clarification, I never mentioned Senator Cools' name. I want you to get that straight. Do you want to challenge me? Challenge me any time. Make sure you have got it straight. I said Senator Tkachuk and Senator Lynch-Staunton, not Senator Cools. Is that understood?

Senator Joyal: I want to be understood by honourable senators.

In her previous statement, Senator Cools mentioned that she rose before I did, and that I had been recognized unfairly by the Speaker. If you did not mention it, Senator St. Germain, I apologize and I withdraw. I contend that you have maintained that Senator Lynch-Staunton as well as Senator Tkachuk were on their feet. I totally agree with that. Thus, I bend to you on that.

Senator St. Germain: Accepted.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I do not think the argument about who got up first, who got up at the same time, or who got up last has anything to do with it, except that there was a time when, if a number of people got up at the same time, the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Government would be recognized first. In this case, that was not respected. However, that is not a rule. It is a convention, or it used to be.

I have not challenged the propriety of Senator Murray's motion. Obviously, it was in order. What I do challenge, in order or not — and this is where my privilege was breached — was the refusal to even be allowed to debate it. That is where my privilege was challenged.

As soon as Senator Murray was finished, Senator Joyal was recognized to move the previous question. That was the end of the debate. It was an unprecedented motion on which no debate was allowed. I feel my privilege was seriously affected as a result.

Privilege has nothing to do with changing the rules; it has to do with being impeded in debate. That is what we are talking about now. We were refused debate on an important motion. If this is allowed to stand, it means that we are setting a precedent for similar action to be taken.

Honourable senators, I will not be around when it happens too often, but this Senate and the whole of Parliament will be negatively affected by it. God forbid that it should happen.

Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I rise in an endeavour to be of assistance to the Speaker in this matter, and not to take any partisan view with regard to Bill C-250. It is not a government bill and the government has played no role in using the rules here in any way, shape or form. However, a question of privilege has been put before the chamber and it is the obligation of senators to assist the Speaker when they feel they have some point to draw.

First, as a member of this chamber, I have a concern with respect to a closure motion on a private member's bill. I believe the practice has to be given further inquiry, and I would hope that —

Senator Lynch-Staunton: You voted for it.

Senator Austin: — the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament would examine the four corners of the issue. It is a case that has more than a simple line of argument that should be addressed to it because there is the point that, at some time, Parliament should decide whatever business is before it. The other point is that Parliament and members of the Senate should be given the opportunity to have a fulsome debate. I shall not address the issue of whether there has been an opportunity to give a fulsome debate on Bill C-250; I shall leave that question to others.

However, we have a doctrine in parliamentary practice that argues that there is no question of privilege where there is an opportunity to deal with the decision of the Speaker. I would draw the attention of honourable senators to rules 33(1) and 33(2), which read as follows:

When two or more Senators rise to speak at the same time, the Speaker shall call upon the Senator who, in the Speaker's opinion, first rose.

(2) In the circumstances provided in section (1) above, before the Senator recognized by the Speaker has begun to speak, a third Senator may rise on a point of order and propose a motion naming another Senator who had risen and proposing that this other Senator "be now heard" or "do now speak," and the question on such a motion shall be put forthwith without debate or amendment.
I recall Senator Sparrow very recently attempting to use that rule. However, there was not a reversal of the decision of the Speaker in that particular case.
Thus, there was an opportunity, honourable senators, as I understand the proceedings that took place last Thursday, for some honourable senator to rise and have the view of this chamber under rule 33 as to which senator should be given the opportunity to speak. As that opportunity was not taken, I do not see how a question of privilege can arise now with respect to the decision of the Speaker with regard to which senator should be recognized.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I should like to respond to a couple of the issues raised.

I shall begin with Senator Austin. First, Senator Austin is treating this matter as a question of order while I have been raising a question of privilege.
Senator Austin also insists that it was open last Thursday for members to rise on a point of order and move that another senator be now heard, according to the rule he just cited.

Obviously, Senator Austin should look carefully at the record. If he were to do so, he would see Senator Stratton trying to raise a point of order, as well as myself trying to raise a point of order, and the Speaker was not hearing any of us.

I shall come back to the question of points of order and the questions of privilege. I had the option to raise this as a point of order. This is not a point of order. This is a question of the violation of every single member's privileges. I intend to come back to that in a moment.

If honourable senators look to page 894 of the Debates of the Senate for April 22, 2004, they will see that not only is the Speaker recognizing Senator Joyal over Senator Lynch-Staunton but that the Speaker is continuing through the process to be defending Senator Joyal and declining to take points of order.

The custom here is that a leader is always called first by any Speaker. Senator Stratton was saying, "Point of order," as was I. That happened a lot even today. I was on my feet several times saying, "Point of order." Therefore, to my mind, there is no real argument that can possibly be treated as valid in this context that one could have done this when, in point of fact, any attempt to raise points of order was being met by blind eyes and deaf ears.

The other question that I should like to come to is Senator Austin's point on private member's bills. It is not good enough to say that the rules should be changed to allow X and Y in the future. The fact of the matter is that the practice, the custom and the usages of this place have preserved guillotine motions and these kinds of motions for government bills. Private member's bills have not had access to these kinds of procedures. It is pointless to say that it may be changed in the future. I am speaking about what has transpired now.

Honourable senators, I have been here for a lot of years. I know that the government gets what it wants, what it wishes, and when it does not want something, that something usually does not see the light of day in this place, except under rare circumstances.

I should like to dispute and challenge most of what Senator Austin had to say. The fact that a rule may go in a certain direction in the future does not impair the fact that it should be used as the rule here today.

I should like to move on now to deal with the whole question of what Senator Joyal said about who rose first.

(2100)

Read the record; it is very clear. The record is crystal clear, complete with the confusion of the mixing of the motions.

Senator Joyal has talked about the integrity of the Speaker. I put a quotation on the record a little while ago in respect to the earnest need of the Speaker to act in an appropriate way in certain circumstances, and that action is what usually commands respect from the rest of the chamber. It is incumbent upon the Speaker to exercise impartiality.

I come now to Senator Joyal's assertion about two things. One is the Rules of the Senate, but first talks about the rule where he says senators are free to overrule, to appeal a Speaker's ruling. Honourable senators, that is on a point of order. This is not a point of order. Senator Joyal is confusing a point of order with a question of privilege. As a matter of fact, I have raised this question of privilege in accordance with rule 43, which states very clearly, "the earliest opportunity" afterwards; and this is the earliest opportunity afterwards. This does not in any way excuse or justify anything whatsoever for Senator Joyal to say, "Oh, well, senators could have appealed the ruling," because I am not questioning the Speaker's ruling in respect of the point of order, with which I disagree very strongly; I did not see fit to question it but I did see fit to raise a question of privilege.

I would like to come to one other point in respect of what Senator Joyal says could have been done. I will give him a suggestion of what I think could have been done by him Thursday. Thursday, I challenged Her Honour. I said:
Your Honour, you are required to follow the rules of the place. I wanted to speak to Senator Murray's motion.

See Part 2 at
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/040428b.html

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428a.html

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.