Health Freedom Update from Trueman Tuck - See attached Bill C-6 Senate debates from yesterday - A Great Victory for All Canadians
Trueman of the Tuck Clan
I have been in Ottawa the last three days monitoring and Lobbying to Stop Bill C-6 on behalf of All concerned Canadians.
Our quest for full respect and compliance with the jurisdictional division of powers and over 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian evaluation of the PEOPLES' COMMON LAW has achieved an historic victory for Freedom yesterday - see attached Senate transcripts.
Our Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom is the only grassroots' voice for ordinary Canadians and micro-small family enterprises [defined as 20 or less team members including employees, contractors and family members] activity present here in Ottawa to champion your individual rights against the ever expanding control by the STATE as clearly highlighted by the Senate record pertaining to Bill C-6.
We did get some major media coverage, something that does not happen too often - please see the Toronto Star article dealing with where the Minister of Health is going on this drive to ignore over 500,000 Canadians? clearly expressed Peoples? Mandate directive pertaining to Bill C-6.
What the article does not say - is the Committee attempted a number of times to have the Minister appear to discuss Bill C-6 and the Minister of Health would not do so.
So much for Rule of Law and Fundamental democratic due process in Canada.
We need to insist on elected senators, citizen's legislative initiatives, citizen driven referendums, recall of all MPS and Senators and an elected directly elected Prime Minister similar to how Presidents are elected in other democratic / Republic style democracies.
It is We, the People of Canada that invest our hard-earned tax dollars to support all MPs, Senators and their staff. We need the Democratic Freedom Tools to ensure that THEY respect and follow our clearly stated PEOPLES' MANDATE instructions.
Please call, fax, visit and e-mail every one of the Senators immediately and request that they stop Bill C-6. You need to go to www.canadiancoalitionforhealthfreedom.ca and clicking on the BIG RED STOP C-6 SIGN and sending your E-Protest e-mails to all 400 plus Senators and MPs and / or on the BIG BLACK STOP sign to send your E-Protest to the Senate Social Affairs Committee which is currently preparing its report to the full Senate for the Third Reading Debate and the Senator Legal and Constitutional Committee, where we believe the Bill should have been sent originally.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOW A FRENCH VERSION OF OUR E-PROTEST ACTION LETTER AVAILABLE.
YOU NEED TO DO THIS NOW BEFORE THE 1:00 PM Senate vote tomorrow.
YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE BY PARTICIPATING WITH US. We need your financial and other help. See our website to donate and / or join.
Your champion in Ottawa,
Trueman Tuck
On behalf of the Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom
Office & Mailing Address: c/o Tucks Business Center, P.O. Box 20144,
Belleville, Ontario, Canada, K8N 5V1
Phone: (613) 771-1797 Fax: (613) 771-1435
E-mail: united@canadiancoalitionforhealthfreedom.ca
Websites: www.canadiancoalitionforhealthfreedom.ca
Be sure to visit our affiliated websites: www.healthcanadaabuse.ca |
www.friendsoffreedominternational.org | www.freedomofchoiceinhealthcare.ca |
Canada
Third Reading
Hon. Yonah Martin moved third reading of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.
She said: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to rise in this chamber in defence of good legislation for which the time has come. In Bill C-6, we have important legislation that aims to modernize
I wish to again acknowledge the thorough and thoughtful work of the Honourable Senator Day and all members of the committee.
Bill C-6 seeks to match the realities of today's global marketplace, just as it does the standards set by our major trading partners. Canadians deserve to be afforded the same protection provided to residents of the
In my remarks today, I wish to demonstrate to this chamber the merits of Bill C-6 and why I believe it should be passed in its current form. First, I do not think anyone questions the need for
In the economy of today, businesses have greater opportunity and consumers have greater choice. Government, meanwhile, maintains its role in the oversight of product safety. Canadians look to Health
In pursuit of this objective, Bill C-6 proposes a number of things, but let me focus on two of the most important.
First, on information, Bill C-6 proposes mandatory reporting of incidents with consumer products from industry to Health
Second, on acting as quickly as possible, Bill C-6 proposes that inspectors gain the authority to require suppliers to carry out recalls and other corrective measures when needed. Today, once again, unfortunately, determining that a product poses an imminent danger is half the battle, because in order for that product to be pulled off the shelf, Health
Honourable senators, it is fair to acknowledge that these provisions call upon industry in
Honourable senators, perhaps one could be persuaded that Bill C-6 puts an unfair burden on industry if the inspection and recall powers it seeks were unique to one specific sector and nowhere else. However, the authorities being proposed are not unprecedented within
Let us make no mistake; this is what this legislation is all about. I can safely say that all consumers want to have confidence in what they buy, all the more so for parents buying cribs and toys for their children. In order for that to be the case, Canadians have to know that our inspectors have the information and power they need to act quickly and effectively to prevent tragedies instead of only reacting in their aftermath.
In its original form, Bill C-6 includes the tools that product safety experts need to make families safer and consumers more confident. Given that the bar is set higher for our trading partners,
Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, my comments on this matter will not be long as you have already heard from me at length. Because this legislation has elicited a number of rather sharp remarks along the way and has been somewhat difficult, it is important that we congratulate the chair, Senator Eggleton; the deputy chair, Senator Keon; and all members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for handling this legislation in such an able manner.
As well, I would like to thank and congratulate Senator Martin, the sponsor of this bill, the first bill she has sponsored in this chamber. We both learned a lot working together, she as the sponsor and me as the critic.
Honourable senators, reference to
(1610)
In the amendments that we rejected yesterday, by a vote of 42 to 44, there were certain technical amendments that were clearly necessary, as advised by drafting and legal counsel. I regret very much that the minister did not see fit to at least adopt those technical amendments because, without them, the sections do not make sense and do not apply. One of them was an amendment made at a House of Commons committee which did not reflect the process and the procedure in this chamber. We have let that go and I think that is unfortunate.
Honourable senators, these points of our record will be reviewed by lawyers making submissions, and I think it is important that we lay out for them the weakness in this particular legislation. I found the misrepresentations that were made by the minister in relation to the amendments to be very disappointing. I have mentioned that before. We should try not to involve fear-mongering. We should not try to characterize legislation as being an absolute must because of cribs, babies, toys, and so on. This legislation applies to everything that one can imagine, for example, hockey sticks, toasters — everything one can imagine. To try to make one's point by talking about babies and cribs is to move this legislation in a direction where we made some serious mistakes with respect to the anti-terrorism legislation that was passed so quickly after 9/11. Honourable senators, we have to try to avoid that. I tried to get the minister to engage in a reasonable dialogue on the amendments, but I was unsuccessful in achieving that dialogue.
Honourable senators, two points were made: one is mandatory reporting. I absolutely agree that mandatory reporting is necessary. There was no amendment that would change that mandatory reporting. To suggest that the amendment would require us still to get information from the
With respect to recall, the only change with respect to recall in the amendments was to try to reflect what the government representative said was the process that they would be following and that they do follow. The only other change was that if there is a mandatory recall, it would be done by the minister, as opposed to an inspector, because it is such a serious and fundamental step. As I pointed out before, that is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture does. The power for recall for the Department of Agriculture rests with the minister. We wanted to reflect that same power in this particular legislation. Unfortunately, honourable senators, that was rejected yesterday.
I have made my points with respect to those amendments. I do not intend to reintroduce those amendments here today, but I stand by my view, on the advice of many, that this legislation is an unnecessary overreach and will cause problems in the future.
Hon. George J. Furey: Honourable senators, I would like to make a few comments regarding this troublesome legislation, Bill C-6, which is before the Senate. I begin by thanking Senator Martin for her remarks. While I support the intention and the purpose of this legislation, I strongly encourage senators not to pass it without amendment. There is one particularly disturbing clause in the legislation that needs to be removed.
As Bill C-6 now stands, consumer safety inspectors can enter our homes and seize our property, such as computers and documents, without any judicial supervision. These things are not minor annoyances to be overlooked in the passage of the bill. In my view, these must be addressed by the Senate. With these general comments in mind, it is this entry into our homes on which I want to focus senators' attention.
I do not wish to deny the government new consumer product safety legislation. However, I do not want powers of entry into our homes passed through Parliament on flimsy pretexts and without due consideration. Simply put, honourable senators, there is nothing that justifies entry into our private homes as it is written in this bill.
The power to enter the family home is set out in clause 21(2) of the bill, which states:
A justice of the peace may, on ex parte application, issue a warrant authorizing, subject to the conditions specified in the warrant, the person who is named in it to enter a dwelling-house if the justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that
(a) the dwelling-house is a place described in subsection 20(1);
(b) entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for the purposes referred to in subsection 20(1); . . .
The justice of the peace then determines that entry into a dwellinghouse is necessary for one of the purposes set out in clause 20(1), which reads:
Subject to subsection 21(1), an inspector may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, at any reasonable time enter a place, including a conveyance, in which they have reasonable grounds to believe that a consumer product is manufactured, imported, packaged, stored, advertised, sold, labelled, tested or transported, or a document relating to the administration of this Act or the regulations is located.
This is where the justice can evaluate what precisely the purposes are which are referred to in clause 21. It is clear that there are only two purposes which may be shown to be necessary to a justice. First, the inspector may enter for the purposes of verifying compliance with the act. Second, an inspector may enter your home to prevent non-compliance with the act.
It is in these words of clause 20(1) that we find the totally unnecessary and overreaching power of the state to enter our family homes.
I ask honourable senators to focus on the word "stored" set out in this section. The old legislation, the Hazardous Products Act, used the phrase "stored for sale." Removal of the phrase "for sale" has dramatic implications. Removal of the phrase "for sale" means that the interpretation of the section now allows for any single consumer product "stored" in a family home for any reason to be sufficient grounds on which a warrant to enter that home may issue. "Stored" now means, simply, to have an innocently purchased product in your home.
Unlike the traditional warrant-issuing power of section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada, an inspector does not have to show that he or she believes an offence is being committed. Unlike the traditional warrant powers, the inspector does not have to link an offence to the family home. The inspector has to show nothing more than a desire to check compliance or prevent non-compliance with the act. This is not how our law has developed. We would have essentially no freedom and no privacy if that was the state of our law. We would be living in a police state.
The response from the officials to this overreaching warrant power has been, in my humble opinion, inadequate. They say "An inspector has to go to court to get a warrant to get into our homes." That is not how this bill is written.
(1620)
Once inside the home of an innocent buyer of a single consumer product, the inspector has the power to seize and detain for any time that may be necessary an article to which Bill C-6 applies. I would remind senators that this seizure power applies to any consumer article in our homes, with the exception of natural food and health products.
Once the inspector is inside our home, the inspector may open any receptacle and examine and copy any document found in that place.
Once the inspector is in your home, the inspector can order you, the homeowner, to move a particular consumer product to which Bill C-6 applies, at your expense.
As senators are no doubt aware, entry powers already exist in the Criminal Code of Canada. Peace officers may seize and detain articles. However, the fundamental difference — and it is the key issue of my entire concern — is that peace officers cannot obtain a warrant to enter our homes without having reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that the home is in some way linked to that offence. They cannot seize articles from your home without reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the articles are related to the offence. Peace officers cannot simply enter your home to check compliance with the Criminal Code. Peace officers cannot enter your home and seize your property simply to check compliance with the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the celebrated Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. case in 1984, has established that merely checking compliance is not a sufficient ground upon which to issue a search warrant and seize personal property. Yet, we see that the entire Bill C-6 regime revolves around entering family homes to check compliance or prevent non-compliance.
In my view, honourable senators, we must remove the specific power of entry into our homes set out in clause 21 of this bill. For home entry, inspectors will then be required to apply for a warrant to a justice of the peace under section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This is the proper way in which inspectors in
The Assistant Deputy Minister of Health for Consumer Affairs testified at committee that the purpose of the new legislation was to protect the public by preventing dangers to human health and safety posed by consumer products. Honourable senators, this is a very lofty and legitimate reason for any legislation.
The department testified that we already have hazardous products legislation that prohibits the advertising and sale of hazardous products, which is meant to include consumer products.
Again, I repeat, I am not denying the usefulness of Bill C-6 legislation. However, when Bill C-6 contains a serious erosion of long-held privacy interests in our family homes and when Bill C-6 authorizes easy entry into the family home simply because a product may be labeled incorrectly, such reasoning is not sufficient to destroy the long-held protection of the privacy of our family homes.
All federal officials who deal with regulatory legislation know that they are in possession of a universal warrant power to enter family homes. This is contained in section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada. I strongly urge senators to remove the dwelling house entry provision in Bill C-6. This will leave inspectors under this act with section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada for home entry, and that is how it should be.
This Bill C-6 legislation eliminates the constitutional requirement of a warrant to enter every family home in
None of the existing requirements for home entry in section 487 of the Criminal Code exist in Bill C-6. The consumer safety inspector need only wish to check compliance or prevent non-compliance. This, honourable senators, is ridiculous, to allow an inspector to invade our homes where there is not even a suspicion of an offence. This is not protecting the Canadian public. This is not the Canadian way.
Honourable senators, officials have responded to this concern by saying that an inspector must —
(Debate suspended.)
Visitor to the Senate
The Hon. the Speaker: I wish to apologize to the honourable senator.
I would like to call the attention of honourable senators to the presence below the bar of Barbara Ann Scott and the Olympic flame.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, honourable senators.
Canada
Third Reading
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, for the third reading of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.
Hon. George J. Furey: Thank you, Your Honour. That was a welcome relief.
Honourable senators, officials have responded to this particular concern, by saying that the inspector must go to court to get a warrant before entering a family home. This is not so. That is not how this legislation is written. There is no such court requirement anywhere in this bill. Instead, an inspector need only ask a justice of the peace for a warrant. This is not a court, and Canadians enjoy none of the traditional protections that are associated with the power to issue warrants. Senators will know that, in most parts of
I have referred senators to the fact that section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada exists to assist all federal officials in all federal departments to carry out their duties under their respective statutes. Section 487 is used in criminal investigations, but it is not restricted to criminal investigations. It applies to the Criminal Code and to any other act of Parliament.
As such, if we were to amend Bill C-6 to remove this dwelling house provision, consumer safety inspectors could use section 487 of the Criminal Code for their entry into a family home — something which I contend and which I would like to impress upon you is the proper way of doing things in Canada.
Officials at committee stated that a court would only provide the warrant if they provide evidence for reason to be concerned. First, we know that in Bill C-6 there is no provision for going to court. Second, we know the justice has no real role to play. The inspector merely shows that he wants to verify compliance or prevent non-compliance. The justice of the peace will not require evidence of an offence. The justice of the peace will not require that the homeowner is manufacturing. The justice of the peace will not require evidence that the homeowner is storing for sale, as he had to do in the past. Section 20 of the bill extends the reach of the act to the unknowing final consumer of a single consumer product. This could be something as simple as a purchase from eBay or Wal-Mart.
I urge honourable senators not to be lulled into a sense of complacency. This is an egregious invasion of the privacy of the family home as we know it in
The new warrant powers of Bill C-6 remove the phrase "stored for sale," which clearly applies to sellers, and replaces it with the word "stored." The warrant target is now changed to consumer products rather than hazardous products. This puts all our family homes within the scope of this section of Bill C-6, whereas none of our family homes were within the scope of the Hazardous Products Act unless we were manufacturing or storing for sale in our homes.
(1630)
This new warrant power extends beyond manufacturers and suppliers. Colleagues, there is only one party beyond manufacturers and suppliers, and that is the ordinary, everyday Canadian consumer whose family home and privacy are now at issue.
The department has made much use of the fact that there is a warrant power similar to clause 22 of the bill, contained in various other federal statutes. This is true. However, each of the said federal statutes is a specifically constructed law aimed at a particular, restricted and well-defined group of participants and activities in a controlled industry.
Bill C-6 is not equivalent to giving power to nuclear inspectors to enter the home of a nuclear licensee under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. I find it problematic that the Department of Justice would see fit to use such an analogy with other types of legislation in order to try to justify entry into our homes under consumer products legislation.
The power to enter into a dwelling house exists in the Fertilizers Act, the Marine Transportation Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Migratory Birds Act, the Fisheries Act and the Shipping Act. However, all of these acts tend to have several important restrictions on the general power of inspectors.
First, these acts tend to target an industrial participant who would have good reason to know the rules and regulations and implicitly possesses a lower expectation of privacy if, for example, they are wrongfully involved in storing harmful fertilizers, nuclear materials or illegally harvested fish in their homes.
Second, these acts with dwelling-house entry power implicitly or explicitly limit the scope of invasion by the inspector. Illegally caught fish cannot be stored on your home computer; fertilizer cannot be stored on your home computer. However, the receipt you received via email when you purchased something on eBay can enter into the scope of what an inspector requires to verify compliance or prevent non-compliance with the act. Remember, colleagues, this is an act in part about labelling and it reaches the individual purchaser of a single product.
There is another important distinction between Bill C-6 and other home-entry legislation.
May I have five minutes?
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, as chair, I interrupted the honourable senator to receive the distinguished visitor who is below the bar. I would recommend that we afford Senator Furey a few more minutes because we did interrupt his time. Could we agree that he have five minutes?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Furey: Thank you, Your Honour.
There is another important distinction between Bill C-6 and other legislation with home-entry provisions. In other legislation, there is a degree of inherent wrongdoing associated with the reason for going into homes. In all of these instances, the dwellinghouse entries are tied to wrongdoing or offences. In the case of Bill C-6, there are no offences or wrongdoing of any kind associated with the power to come into your home.
As stated earlier, section 20 of the bill extends to the ordinary consumer buying ordinary products. Regardless of the particular product in question, when an inspector arrives at your door, the legislation gives that inspector a further overreaching justification for obtaining a warrant to enter every home where a consumer product exists. That is the "document" power.
To enter our homes, the inspector does not even need to seek verification of compliance with the act. The inspector can get a warrant to come into our homes merely by referring to the fact that there may be a document related to the administration of the act in our homes.
What this means is that any place where you may keep consumer product documents — from your personal files, to your computer, to your purse, to your wallet, to your tax file — all these places become a search and seizure target under this bill.
While the extraordinary home-entry powers given to inspectors in this bill are frightening, equally frightening is that the object of the act is so tied up in the everyday, innocent activity of ordinary Canadians. Not everyone in the country is a criminal or a nuclear licensee, but everyone in the country is a consumer.
Before concluding my remarks on the home-entry warrant provision of Bill C-6, I want to refer senators to the strongest evidence against this excessive entry power. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed itself to the warrant requirements that federal regulatory agencies must follow in the famous 1984 case of Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. The Combines Investigation Act used to have a warrant provision that was similar to Bill C-6 in that it required a low threshold for an investigator to obtain a warrant.
Justice Dickson described the equivalent section of the Combines Investigation Act as follows:
Section 10 is terse in the extreme on the subject of criteria for issuing an authorization for entry, search and seizure.
He goes on to say:
This is a very low standard which would validate intrusion on the basis of suspicion, and authorize fishing expeditions of considerable latitude. It would tip the balance strongly in favour of the state and limit the right of the individual to resist to only the most egregious intrusions. I do not believe that this is a proper standard for securing the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
In other words, colleagues, such a low standard for search and seizure in our homes violates section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of Canada makes it clear that there should be some link to an offence and that there be reasonable and probable grounds to link that offence with the family home in terms of evidence likely to be found there. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down precisely this Bill C-6 type of legislative overreaching by the state in the Hunter case. This is the seminal case on regulatory search and seizure, and, as parliamentarians, we must be guided by it.
In conclusion, I want to leave senators with the comment that Bill C-6 should not be treated as merely one more in a long line of innocuous federal statutes that carry little or no real concern for ordinary citizens.
Honourable senators, I ask you to take the security and sanctity of the family home under careful consideration before you pass Bill C-6. It should not pass as it stands. The dwelling-house provision should be removed. Its removal would force inspectors to apply to a Justice of the Peace under section 487 of the Criminal Code when seeking to enter a family home. Canadians should enjoy at least the constitutionally minimal protection provided by the Criminal Code warrant provision when they sit in their family homes.
As senators, we have an obligation to jealously guard against unwarranted search and seizure for all Canadians and to ensure that their homes remain as they should be — the ultimate oasis of privacy, a privacy that has been repeatedly protected by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Motion in Amendment
Hon. George J. Furey: for those reasons, honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-6 be not now read a third time but that it be amended:
(a) in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing line 29 with the following:
"importation, packaging, storing for sale, advertising,";
(b) in clause 20,
(i) on page 10, by replacing line 38 with the following:
"imported, packaged, stored for sale, advertised, sold,"; and
(ii) on page 11, by replacing line 41 with the following:
"packages, stores for sale, advertises, sells, labels, tests";
(c) in clause 21,
(i) on page 12,
(A) by deleting lines 16 to 35, and
(B) by replacing lines 36 and 37 with the following:
"21. (1): If the inspector obtains a warrant authorizing entry into a place mentioned in subsection 20(1), the inspector may not use force in executing the warrant", and
(ii) on page 13, by replacing lines 1 to 3 with the following:
"(2): If an inspector believes that it would not be practical to appear personally to make an application for a warrant referred to in subsection (1),a";
(d) in clause 31 on page 15, by replacing line 22 with the following:
"packaging, storing for sale, advertising, selling, label-"; and
(e) in clause 36 on page 18,
(i) by replacing line 18 with the following:
"tion, packaging, storing for sale, sale, advertising,", and
(ii) by replacing line 23 with the following:
"tion, packaging, storing for sale, sale, advertising,".
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
(1640)
The Hon. the Speaker: On debate, Senator Martin.
Hon. Yonah Martin: I thank the honourable senator for his impassioned statement and interpretation of this act. As the sponsor of the Bill C-6 and as one of the committee members who listened to all the witnesses that were called, I want to give a clear explanation based on what I heard.
The honourable senator's interpretation of what he is describing is most extreme, and it was not one that was shared around the table. There were concerns and Senator Day, as critic, raised various concerns. However, I want to assure all honourable senators, upon hearing Senator Furey, that Bill C-6 is specifically to protect the consumers.
When the honourable senator speaks about the private dwelling place, there are private homes that are also places of business. If he had perhaps read all the transcripts from the committee, we had witnesses from the Department of Justice, together with the Privacy Commissioner and various witnesses from different industries and organizations who reinforced, again and again, their confidence in the process that has been followed to date.
This bill specifically focuses on the holes that currently exist in our system, which are that it does not require mandatory reporting. That system creates all kinds of holes. In order for Health
As well, in terms of requiring mandatory recalls, we do not have those powers at this time. Because of our global marketplace and because our competitors have these provisions already, we need to modernize this act.
When we talked about the private dwelling place and the power of the inspectors, we questioned all our witnesses around that provision. Our Privacy Commissioner assured us she had no concerns whatsoever.
As well, in terms of the work of the inspectors and the minister being fully accountable, she was confident that inspectors would be appointed that were specialists who had expertise in their fields and who would be able to address the problem. It is not about going into homes to incriminate innocent consumers. If the dwelling place is a place of business, it is about the ability to enter it, if there is just cause.
The honourable senator says that these powers are overextended and the inspectors will be barging in, but there is a process. Health
I appreciate what the honourable senator has shared today; however, I can almost say the fear mongering he presented, which we have been accused of is —
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!
An Hon. Senator: Fear mongering?
Senator Martin: I want to remind all senators that this bill is part of our Canadian system. The reason we propose this bill is to ensure we give the inspectors from Health
The tools we need in this modern globalized age are not present in our current system. It is outdated; it is 40 years old. We have heard from countless witnesses, as well as consumer organizations that are calling on us to support this bill.
Christmas is just around the corner. We need a tighter, stronger modernized system.
An Hon. Senator: I think I heard a question in there somewhere, Your Honour.
The Hon. the Speaker: We were on debate. Does the honourable senator have a question or comment on the speech of Senator Martin? I said on debate.
Senator Furey: Irrespective of what the Department of Justice or Department of Health says — and I said from the beginning that I appreciate they want new legislation and I want them to have it — is it fear mongering to worry about innocent Canadians sitting in their homes and having them crashed by inspectors who want to check labelling? That is how this act is written when it comes to private homes.
The honourable senator talked about the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner is concerned about the dissemination of personal information about individuals. The Privacy Commissioner would, I suspect — and I read the testimony — turn her attention to sections 14, 15 and 16.
The privacy that I am talking about is the privacy set out by Justice Dickson in the Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. case, which says that Canadians have a right to sit in the privacy of their home and be free from unreasonable search and seizure. That is the privacy I am talking about.
The Privacy Commissioner can say all she wants to about being happy with the fact that personal information about individuals will not be distributed. That is not the privacy I am talking about here. I am talking about the privacy of sitting in the sanctity of one's home with one's family.
The honourable senator also talked about the fact that this view may sound a little extreme. I read the transcripts. I honestly think that some senators were lulled into a sense of complacency because officials came before them and said, Do not worry, relax; no court will ever give a warrant under those conditions.
However, we know now that there is no provision in the act whatsoever for a court to become involved. It is between an inspector and a justice of the peace.
I agree completely with the lofty principles behind this bill in terms of protecting people, but there is absolutely no need to invade our homes to provide that protection.
When the honourable senator talks about the fact that people carry on businesses in homes, the Hazardous Products Act looked after that situation with the phrase, "manufactured or stored for sale" — a place where they are manufacturing or storing for sale. The amendment I proposed put the phrase back in, "storing for sale."
They cannot use their home as a shield to conduct illegal activity. That is why we should include in the bill, "stored for sale." If they are storing for sale and someone wants to come in, they have every right to obtain a warrant and come in. If they are manufacturing in their home, they have every right to get a warrant and come in. However, you might be a consumer buying ordinary everyday products and placing them in your home. It is no good to say, as some witnesses have said, that that will never happen; that a warrant will never be issued.
(1650)
If a judge is looking at legislation that takes a clause from another piece of legislation, such as "stored for sale" and drops "for sale," a judge will not say, "Oh, Parliament did not know what they were doing. That was a typo." Judges will assume that we knew what we were doing and they will assume that all the consequences that flow from that will flow. That is my concern and worry.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, continuing debate on the amendment proposed by Senator Furey, seconded by Senator Moore. Senator Martin has entered that debate. Senator Furey rose during questions and comments on the debate presented by Senator Martin. There are about five minutes left in Senator Martin's question. Are there further questions and comments on Senator Martin's intervention? If not, then we will continue the debate.
Hon. George Baker: Honourable senators, I am tempted to rise today after listening to that most eloquent speech by Senator Furey. I was also impressed by Senator Keon's comments yesterday on Bill C-6.
Senator Furey has a great history in criminal case law and civil law. He has represented the accused in criminal law and the respondent in civil matters. He has represented hospitals in legal suits, and labour boards as a respondent. He has represented appellants before our courts of appeal. He has a great history in administrative and criminal law. Bill C-6 before the house is just that.
Senator Martin has done a magnificent job in her role on Bill C-6, as has Senator Keon. Honourable senators have heard two points of view on third reading of the bill — that of Senator Furey and that of Senator Keon.
I do not like to attack anything that Senator Keon says.
I recall about one year ago in the summer, a radio station had run a survey to ask who the most popular person in
The result was announced during the noon hour. A representative of one of the party leaders said something remarkable during an interview that day. He said that the survey was unfair and that a comparison could not be made between Dr. Keon, as he called him, and politicians because Dr. Keon was in the business of saving people and making them healthy, and politicians were not. It is too bad the interviewer did not ask him just what business the politicians were in.
Senator Keon's address on this bill might be referred to as the "Keonian maxim." His message was that although the bill is not perfect, it is about the health of Canadians, so honourable senators should get on with it. That about sums it up, and I see Senator Keon nodding his head in agreement.
I do not normally read all the emails received on proposed legislation — and senators receive more emails than members of the House of Commons receive — but I read many of them on this bill.
I noticed a great many emails from the manufacturers talked about the business of entry to their homes. All the other provisions of the bill seemed to take second place to that one, which is what Senator Furey is talking about.
I do have to correct him on one thing. Section 487 of the Criminal Code says "a justice," not "a justice of the peace." A justice is defined under section 2 of the Criminal Code as a provincial court judge or a justice of the peace. I see a couple of senators nodding because they know this to be correct. The same thing applies to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which says, "a justice as recognized under section 2 of the act." Professor Oliver would bear that out to be correct.
Normally under section 487 of the Criminal Code, a judge would issue a warrant because when someone sees something, they give a return to the judge and it is held. The judge then makes a determination and agrees that the item will be held for 30 days, expecting them to return at the end of the 30 days and tell him why they need to continue holding it for investigative purposes. If they are not going to lay a charge, then they have to present another application and give good reason for holding it. That is one check and balance.
Senator Martin is correct about the justice of the peace. In the Health of Animals Act in
Honourable senators, 15 years after
(1700)
A stream or a river that goes from the ocean to the interior passes through several properties, but there is no stop sign at the property line. If there was, the fish would not respect it. Therefore, we gave the power to those people to enter people's private property for investigative purposes.
I read this part of the transcript to the officials, and they said: Well, it is under the Health of Animals Act; it is under the Fisheries Act and it is under the Wildlife Act. Yes, it is there because of what is done under those acts.
I do not want to go on about this issue, honourable senators. I only wanted to point out two things. As Senator Furey said, he has no beef with everything else, although there are a lot of problems there, as Senator Keon said. However, he has taken up this issue and said, "A man's home is his castle." It sure is. One thing that has survived since 1604 says:
The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose.
That is from Semayne's Case, 1604,
Further down, there is the quote from Justice Sopinka. I do not know how many honourable senators knew Justice Sopinka. He was a great man. Chief Justice Lamer was, as well.
This quote is from Justice Sopinka, from Evans. This, honourable senators, is under the applied licence to approach someone's door to knock on their door. We allow the postman and someone selling things to knock on someone's door. There is an implied licence to knock on a door. Who cannot knock on a door? A police officer cannot knock on someone's door, if the officer's intent is to investigate a criminal charge against that person. However, everyone else can.
There is this licence. At paragraph 16 of Evans, Justice Sopinka said:
Clearly, occupiers of a dwelling cannot be presumed to invite the police (or anyone else) to approach their home for the purpose of substantiating a criminal charge against them. Any "waiver" of privacy rights that can be implied through the "invitation to knock" simply fails to extend that far. As a result, where the agents of the state approach a dwelling with the intention of gathering evidence against the occupant, the police have exceeded any authority that is implied by the invitation to knock.
It is a violation of section 8 of the Charter.
That is on their approach. Do not forget, this bill actually says one has no privacy rights. The bill says this:
An inspector who is carrying out their functions or any person accompanying them may enter on or pass through or over private property,
Senator Furey, however, concentrated not only on the power of an inspector to knock on one's door — the implied consent to knock. He was talking about going inside the house. I will give you the most quoted section in every single court in this land, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Our first quote on knocking came from a British court. The quote used regarding an inspector or a police officer entering someone' home is from the
The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect our reasonable expectations of privacy from unjustified governmental intrusion.
In my view, there is no expectation of privacy more reasonable and more demanding of constitutional protection than our right to expect that we will be let alone in the privacy of our homes during the night. The idea of the police unnecessarily forcing their way into the home in the middle of the night —
This passage is quoted by our Supreme Court of Canada.
Senator Cowan: They do not like the Supreme Court of Canada over there.
Senator Baker: To continue:
- frequently, in narcotics cases, without knocking and announcing their purpose — rousing the residents out of their beds, and forcing them to stand by in indignity in their night clothes while the police rummage through their belongings does indeed smack of a "police state' lacking in the respect for . . . the right of privacy dictated by the U.S. Constitution."
That right is enshrined in Canadian law.
What does this bill do? The bill allows a person to go to a justice of the peace on the grounds — and it is spelled out in the bill — "for the purpose of verifying compliance." When do they have to execute the warrant? It says anytime and for any length of time.
I see my time is up, but I believe, honourable senators, that Senator Furey has given a most magnificent speech. I also congratulate Senator Keon, as well as the representatives of the Conservative Party for the presentation of a difficult position on this bill.
Hon. Wilbert J. Keon: Honourable senators, like Senator Baker, I will be brief. This issue fundamentally boils down to an argument between doctors and lawyers, and we have many brilliant lawyers in this chamber but, unfortunately, only one doctor.
The Canadian Medical Association came to me along the way and met with me, as did the Canadian Cancer Society and so forth. I told them that the major criticism of this bill is that maybe it impinges on human rights. I asked them if they were completely sure of their position.
They said. Yes, we are completely sure of our position.
Last year, 18,000 kids were taken to emergency rooms because they were poisoned by toxic products. The Canadian Cancer Society does not know how many cases of cancer have been caused by ingestion of products that have come, largely, from
The CMA and the Canadian Cancer Society feel that, if there is indeed a risk to human rights, as Senator Baker and Senator Furey have said, the risk is probably not large compared to the risk to health. They are deeply concerned about us going back to where ancient
(1710)
I listened to all of the evidence. Senator Eggleton was good enough to allow me to bring back the Health Canada witnesses twice. They were there three times, including their initial presentation. I had them read into the record this whole business.
I spoke at length with medical authorities who are very concerned about the health hazard of consumer products in this country. This bill only scratches the surface. We need more legislation to follow. This is only the beginning.
I am convinced that not many people will be significantly damaged by having their human rights threatened. I do not know how many, but I do not think it would be many. Paradoxically, is one too many? What about the 18,000 children who were poisoned last year? Is that one too many?
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Stollery: What about my rights?
Senator Keon: I do not think Senator Stollery will be poisoned by a toxic product.
Senator Stollery: It is my right to privacy in my own home that I am talking about.
Senator Keon: I think the honourable senator's right to privacy will be well protected.
With the expert legal system we have in this country —
Senator Mitchell: That is not what your leader says.
Senator Keon: — I think we can be reasonably sure that anyone will not be damaged too severely. No piece of legislation that goes through this chamber is perfect. There is an urgent need, though, for this piece of legislation. It should not be delayed and, perhaps, killed. I think it should be passed, and it should be passed in its original form.
The Hon. the Speaker: Questions and comments?
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I have two brief questions and a story about a situation that occurred in
We had some problems with cheese in
This is simply to say that when we talk about the balanced approach, we can have a situation like that. That action was taken in order to prevent a very severe health problem.
I do not know why the honourable senator talks about the time frame unless
I do not see any reason why we should not have to explain to someone not involved in the case to obtain this permission. This bill establishes a precedent that has not even been seen by criminals. We are not only talking about a health problem, but people who commit crimes. You must have a warrant in that case.
In this case, we are talking about honest people who might have done something wrong, but who have not necessarily committed a crime willfully. We should require a higher level of permission for the inspector than for the police.
Is the honourable senator aware that there are emergency procedures to obtain a warrant within hours? Therefore how can we justify a procedure where people can knock on the door and say, "I want to inspect your house to see if you bought something today?"
This bill addresses products for sale. If one is not in the sales business, I do not see why the inspector should enter and never have to explain to anyone. Once inspectors are given permission to enter a house, they can search the entire house. This is something that we see in political systems other than democracies. We do not do this in democracies.
If the system is fast enough, would the honourable senator agree that we should have the same requirement for evidence before someone enters the home?
Senator Keon: I am not satisfied that the system would be fast enough. Maybe in
Again, I think there will be an inherent delay. I have heard that from everyone. I admit that doctors and scientists do not know much about the law, but they are reasonable people and they feel there will be an inherent delay. The system will be complicated. It will jeopardize the inspection process and remove the element of surprise that inspectors need.
I have no intention of getting into a legal debate with people of the calibre of Senator Furey and Senator Baker.
Senator Demers: Let the senator talk and make your comments after!
Senator Keon: It is quite all right. I do not mind. Many people have been interrupted while talking in this chamber.
Senator Stollery: If the honourable senator cannot take it, he should not be here.
Senator Keon: It is fine with me.
I truly believe that we should not dilute the power of inspectors any further. I do not think anyone will be harmed appreciably by what inspectors do. If this legislation is delayed or dies, a lot of people will be harmed before we get another bill.
Senator Furey: Honourable senators, I will begin by saying to Senator Keon that there is absolutely no one in this chamber, I dare say, in this country that wants to see children hurt as a result of any product.
The problem I see in this bill is, first and foremost, that the Hazardous Products Act gives the minister immediate power to stop the sale and import of any good that is considered dangerous. That is immediate; it is already in the Hazardous Products Act. If we know children are in danger, various pieces of legislation will allow us to barge into homes, take those children, look after them, nurture them and remove them from danger. That is not an issue.
With the amendment to the act I am proposing, there is also the ability for an inspector still to go into a home if there are products that he or she wishes to check. I am saying that there should be some reason — something more substantial than checking the labelling of a product — before they invade the privacy of our homes. I do not think that impacts negatively on the health of our children. It is a completely different issue.
We can go into homes; I am not saying do not go into homes. I am not saying that people should be allowed to use their homes as shields for manufacturing, storing for sale or anything like that.
I am saying that this is a fundamental principle of privacy, dignity and the sanctity of our homes protected by section 8 of the Charter. We should not allow it to be eroded. We should not confuse that with what the honourable senator is saying, which is trying to ensure that we protect the health of young children and all Canadians.
(1720)
Both objectives can be accomplished. That is why I said at the beginning that I agree with the pith and substance of this particular legislation and the purposes and reasons for its existence that have been repeated by Senator Martin and others. I just say, "Stop. Do not take away this last bastion of our freedom in our homes for such frivolous reasons."
Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, I will be extremely brief.
Senator Keon said that not many people will be significantly damaged. Honourable senators, one person is too many. That is the principle of our legal system. Individual rights are the principle of our entire democracy, our Charter and our Criminal Code. We must be there, willing to protect.
I would ask honourable senators to get out the bill. I did, and I went through each and every page for which Senator Furey has recommended an amendment. He changes virtually nothing. The first one still says manufacturing, importation, packaging, storing, advertising, selling, labeling, testing or transportation of a consumer product. It is all left intact. He has added two words. He has added, after "storing, " "for sale". Every other thing is protected.
This is a very minor amendment, honourable senators, but an extraordinarily important one, because each individual Canadian has a right to privacy. They have a right to the protection of their own home. They have a right to live in peace.
Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, as Senators Furey, Baker and Carstairs have said, no one here does not want to pass legislation that is more effective in protecting the health and safety of Canadians. No one here wants to forestall that, but we do want to do it right. It is our job to do it right. The amendment that has been proposed by Senator Furey does not in any way detract from the capacity of agents of the Crown to properly do their job.
In the committee, as Senator Furey has said, we heard officials say, when asked about some of the things that some of us think are overreaching in this bill, "Well, we would not do it in that circumstance. We would not use it that way. You do not have to worry about that because that would never happen." I have no doubt that those people were speaking the truth. They are honourable people, and I am sure they are right.
They are talking about policy, honourable senators. In this place, however, we do not pass policy. We are not here to debate policy. We are here about to pass a law, and the law, in whatever form we now pass it or amend it, will apply not just to this government, and not just to this minister, and not just to those officials who came before us and said that they would never do that. It will apply to the next government, the next minister, the next public officials, and the ones after that, until and unless the law is changed. Therefore, we must take great care. It is our job, honourable senators, to take great care in passing a law. We are not passing policy; we are passing a law. Law is what we are about here, however ill-advised we are, in my case, to deal with questions of law.
How do we do that in this place? We are supposed to do it objectively. This place is famously supposed to be less partisan than the other place. I can only speak from my own personal experience here in the short time that I have been here, honourable senators. I took care to find out that in the years between 2001 and 2006 — that is to say, in the Thirty-seventh, Thirty-eighth and Thirty-ninth Parliaments — during most of which time we had a large, parliament-after-parliament majority in the House of Commons and an overwhelming majority in this place on the part of the Liberal Party, this place passed 196 amendments to Liberal government bills. Almost all of them were approved when they went back to the House of Commons.
That did not make us popular with our leaders. It did not make us popular with the government. It did not make us popular with the Crown. It did not make us popular with the public servants who had espoused those pieces of legislation that we amended. However, we did our job. We made the legislation not perfect, but in every case, as was agreed to by the House of Commons, we made it better. In every case but two of those 196, the House of Commons said, "Yes, you made it better; we approve those amendments."
If we do not do that job, honourable senators, the job we are paid to do here with this particular bill, there is a great likelihood — I happen to think it is a moral cinch — that some of the intrusive powers that are contained in this act will end up in court, and the court will strike them down because they will be ultra vires. Then people will start screaming about judge-made law. Well, it will be judge-made law, and it will be judge-made law because we would have failed to do our job, which is to hold legislation that is proposed here to the standards of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to protect the interests of Canadians. We would have failed in doing that.
By the way, I have to comment editorially that there is a switch here in the conventional wisdom. We are counterintuitive. Most Canadians think that the big, bad Liberals are in favour of big government being intrusive and getting in the way of people's individual rights and putting their nose into business where it ought not be, and that the Conservatives are protecting the bastions of home, business and rights. Here we have the exact opposite.
The minister sent a letter, which we all received. With all due respect to the minister, honourable senators, I have to tell you that I discount that letter. My information is that the minister did not appear before the House of Commons committee when this legislation was being considered. I can tell you for sure that the minister did not appear before the Senate committee when this legislation was being considered, despite having been asked very nicely twice, and despite the best efforts of Senator Martin, who undertook to the committee that she would try to convince the minister to appear. The minister did not appear. I am remembering Senator LeBreton's words, which have rung in my ear since I got here: "No minister, no bill." On this side, we are reasonable people, and we are not saying in this case, "No minister, no bill." We are saying, however, "Let us make the bill right."
Honourable senators, I will be proposing two amendments in addition to the one that has been proposed by Senator Furey.
(1730)
I commend your attention to the bill. Please look at clause 15 on page 9 because that is what I seek to amend. Clause 15 on page 9 is followed closely by clause 16 on page 9. Clause 16 says that the government may disclose confidential business information to foreign governments or to foreign persons without notice, without informing anyone; however, the government can only do so if it obtains from that foreign government or person a written agreement that the private business information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purposes of protecting human health and safety. That is good.
Clause 15 says that the government can disclose private personal information without telling that person to any foreign government or person without any such guarantee at all.
I do not think that the protections that this — one hopes — act of Parliament provides to big corporations ought to be any greater with respect to protecting their private information than is applicable to individual Canadians.
Motion in Amendment
Hon. Tommy Banks: Therefore, honourable senators, I move in my first amendment:
That Bill C-6 be not now read a third time but that it be amended in clause 15, on page 9,
by replacing lines 12 and 13 with the following:
15.(1) The Minister may disclose personal information related to a consumer product to a person or government that; and
(b) by replacing lines 17 to 19 with the following:
"relates if
(a) the disclosure is necessary to identify or address a serious danger to human health or safety; and
(b) the person to whom or government to which the information may be disclosed agrees in writing to maintain the confidentiality of the information and to use it only for the purpose of carrying out those functions.
That language, honourable senators, is imported directly from clause 16.
(2) The Minister shall provide prior notice of the intended disclosure to the individual to whom the personal information relates unless doing so would endanger human health or safety.
(3) If the Minister discloses personal information under subsection (1) without providing prior notice, he or she shall, as soon as practicable but not later than six months after the disclosure, notify the individual to whom the personal information relates.
My second amendment, honourable senators, relates to clause 56. Senator Baker has referred to this.
The Hon. the Speaker: Our procedure permits Senator Banks to make amendments, and he just said a second amendment. There must be unanimous consent to that. However, if the honourable senator's amendment went on to say "and amend" it would be deemed as one amendment, though it may have three parts to it.
Senator Banks: I would like them to be separate, Your Honour, so can we deal with the first one?
The Hon. the Speaker: The honourable senator can make an amendment.
Motion in Amendment
Hon. Tommy Banks: Therefore, honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-6 be not now read a third time but that it be amended in clause 56 on page 31, by replacing line 5 with the following:
"violation has a defence by reason".
Honourable senators, that refers to the provision that Senator Baker referred to which has been around not merely for 40 years but since 1604 — 402 years.
This act does not say that you have been convicted of anything or found to have committed a violation. It says a person named in a notice of violation has no defence by reason of due diligence or by reason of having believed that they were acting with the colour of right.
Senator Moore: Unbelievable.
Senator Banks: It is undoing 400 years of common law. The effect of my amendment removes the word "no" and replaces it with the word "a" so it no longer say has "no defence by reason of due diligence" but now says "has a defence by reason of due diligence," et cetera.
Since the provision provides that this applies to a person who has been named in a notice of violation, not found guilty of anything, not found to have contravened anything, not found to have violated anything, this is the least we can do to protect the interests of individual Canadians, and I urge your positive consideration of those amendments, honourable senators.
The Hon. the Speaker: It has been moved by the Honourable Senator Banks, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, that Bill C-6 be not now read a third time but that it be amended in clause 15 on page 9 and amended in clause 56 on page 31.
I am following the bill as well, and Senator Banks is not making an amendment to page 12, clause 21; that is, the consent.
Honourable senators, we have the motion from Senator Banks seconded by Senator Day. I advise the house that it has been the practice of the house on a bill when we have a number of different amendments that we stack the amendments so that honourable senators can enter the debate on either the principal question, if they have not already spoken to the principal question, or on the first amendment, as is the case right now, and now we have a second amendment.
Is it the agreement of the house that we stack the amendments?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs: As a matter of procedure, just so it is clear for the great number of new senators, when it comes to voting, we will be voting for them individually and not as a group.
The Hon. the Speaker: That being agreed, honourable senators, we will now continue the debate.
Hon. Elaine McCoy: I am rising to speak to Bill C-6. Before I address the substance of the comments that have been made, would honourable senators indulge me in a little exercise? It might help us get through this debate which is intense and meaningful to the future of our country. Just take out a pencil and just sign your name as you are so well used to doing on a piece of paper in front of you. Sign your name; that comes easily to all of us. Keep signing your name and imagine for a moment that you have an itchy nose. Indulge me here. Now rub your nose at the same time. One can do it at the same time. I have seen one or two honourable senators doing so. That demonstrates that sometimes we need to sign our names and sometimes we need to rub our nose because it is itchy. We can do both, and we can honour the needs and the purpose behind each one of those actions.
(1740)
That is what I believe we are trying to introduce in this chamber with certain amendments to this bill. We want to honour the purpose of maintaining consumer product safety and we also want to honour how that purpose is actually implemented. It is possible to have both at the same time.
I am sympathetic to Senator Keon's comments. One that I liked best is that doctors and scientists know nothing about the law. I am a lawyer so you can appreciate that I like that comment very much. However, I am also appreciative of the passion and conviction the senator holds.
I can hear people talking on the front benches of the Conservatives so I will just wait until I have their attention.
I can appreciate the passion and conviction of which some senators speak about preventing cases of harm because of defective consumer products. I also appreciate it when Senator Martin speaks over and over again about the need for a modern law so
I believe we can do that with this legislation, and I also believe that this legislation does not need to break a tradition that we have had in this country, which is to protect the civil liberties of people while we are enforcing the law. We can in fact prevent home invasions without just cause.
When Senator Baker read out the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada that talked about why we have these protections in our law, it was essentially to show that we not end up in a police state, and that is done without having to delay the corrective action. I was appalled to see some of our new senators actually laughing as if this were a joke. However, I am reminded of a joke, and the joke is:
Someone is sitting in a bar having a drink and snapping his fingers. Finally everyone got a bit tired of this. Another person finally asked about it and he said, "Well, I'm keeping the elephants away." The response to that was, "Oh, come on now, don't be silly; there are no elephants here." He said, "Yeah, it's working."
That is somewhat the situation in
Honourable senators, I am sympathetic to everyone in this chamber. I would like to encourage all senators to open up the possibility to honour all of the good intentions being put forward and expressed here.
There are many other pieces in this legislation. In fact, I came prepared to make some amendments today as well. However, I will not do that because it is imperfect legislation and we will not be able to correct it all.
I do not think the patience for all these amendments is very long here, and I think the most fundamental problem with this legislation is the one that Senator Furey has mentioned. The amendments put forward by Senator Banks are important as well, and I think there are a lot more. I do not wish to dilute the intention on what I think are the most important amendments of all. We can always come back later if we have to — and I suspect we will because there will be court challenges on this legislation — and help perfect it at that time.
In the meantime, these are important enough, not only to modernize our Canadian legislation but also not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We do not want an elephant in the room just because we did not write the law correctly. I urge you all to consider keeping those two possibilities open and having them both at the same time.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean Lapointe: Honourable senators, let me say right away that I will be very brief, unlike some people who say that at the beginning, but after 45 minutes end up asking for an extension.
I misunderstood something yesterday. I thought it was Dr. Keon who had sponsored this bill, and given how much I admire him, I went to see him and told him I would be supporting him. That is what I did. Then my guardian angel — I call Senator Hervieux-Payette that, because she knows I am not a lawyer or a doctor; I am but an artist, so I do my best to understand — explained to me that it was a government bill. So I quickly went back to Senator Keon to tell him in all honesty that I was sorry, that I thought it was his bill, but since it is a government bill, I would have to vote against it tomorrow.
That being said, I listened to everything today, although I did leave for a while to go to my office, because I had a great deal of email I needed to respond to. I listened to everything. There is one word we have not heard at all, either yesterday or today, and that word is informer. The question of having the police come without a warrant, without any prior warning; the guy who has a little Volkswagen, but whose neighbour four doors down has a Mercedes, and calls the police to say that the thinks his neighbour has pot in the house. The police will go in at four o'clock in the morning, catch them in their pyjamas, as they will be at that time, and search the house based on an informer's word.
I went to
Honourable senators, that is all I had to say. I said I would be brief and I spoke for about one minute longer than I thought I would.
Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, I would like to add a few remarks to the debate on the first amendment proposed by Senator Furey and on the nature of the debate that ensued about the health of Canadians and protecting the health of Canadians, and about human rights and protecting human rights.
Honourable senators, I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer. I am a soldier. However, I have dealt with and have tremendous respect for individuals practicing both professions. And I can see that there is a dilemma within a similar debate between the two professions, and that the dilemma is a moral one, perhaps even an ethical one about the progress of a bill that could endanger children and that could also endanger human rights.
It is true that in a normal situation, as Senator Martin essentially argued and you supported, people with responsibilities, professional codes of ethics, knowledge, experience and skills, are bound to make logical decisions and to behave normally according to the standards established by our country through tradition, law or the benevolence of the people.
(1750)
But it is in extraordinary situations that we must be careful. When a crisis arises decisions must be made quickly and even responsible people are forced to make decisions that push the limits of what is permissible. In these types of situations we must ensure that these limits do not exceed the fundamental standards and laws of the country.
I will give you an example which, although it may not be a legal example, was brought before the International Criminal Tribunal for
In a country that lived under the yoke of colonialism even after becoming independent, identification cards were issued to its citizens. I am personally against this idea because I believe it is dangerous. However, I have nothing against carrying a health card, a driver's licence or a gun permit.
That country discovered that the identification card was a good method for managing standards. The card contained an innocuous piece of information to help identify individuals: their ethnicity.
The identification card could have listed the religion or any other type of information but the authorities decided to include ethnicity. By reading the card, you could determine the ethnicity of a person. It was useful for daily procedures.
But extreme situations can arise. There was the extreme case of Japanese citizens during World War II. One day they were considered reasonable and responsible citizens. The next, they were enemy conspirators and stripped of their rights. A similar stigma was attached to the Germans in other circumstances.
I will come back to my example of ethnicity and identification cards. There was friction in the country, a crisis developed and the identification card was used to resolve the crisis. The crisis was a political crisis. The solution to the political crisis was to identify people of a certain ethnicity as easily as possible, because it was believed that they had created the crisis and action had to be taken to stop or arrest these people.
In the most extreme cases, not only did the authorities decide to arrest them, they decided to eliminate them. The identity card, a simple legal document identifying the bearer's ethnicity, became the main weapon of destruction of more than 700,000 human beings. It was the main weapon used to identify and eliminate these people. It also forced some four million individuals to become refugees and displaced persons who later caused the deaths of tens of thousands of other individuals. Yet it was simple, it was not complicated, it was normal, it seemed quite logical, it protected people and it represented progress for the country.
I am not going to debate the legal aspect of Bill C-6, except to say that in normal situations, we should not be afraid of extreme scenarios, but that extreme scenarios can sometimes happen.
I will give you another example. Why are police officers in
I just want to bring us back to something normal, as Bill C-6 addresses. People are not stupid. They have experience and skills, and they have business cards. They are good people who do not want to abuse their power. I fully agree with that.
As a future grandfather, I would not want to buy a toy that might make my grandchild sick or even kill him. I hope the existing system and authorities are able to get dangerous toys off the shelves before I can buy them. I believe that the fundamental amendment proposed by Senator Furey does not jeopardize our right to health and safety. There is nonetheless a risk when it comes to human rights. In my opinion, no one has the right to infringe on human rights even if, in a normal scenario, that would not be a valid argument.
In cases where governments are pushed to the limit, however, in extraordinary circumstances, we have to ensure that they do not slip into the post-September 11 situation where human rights are not respected and torture is permitted, where individuals' civil rights are violated under the Patriot Act and where conventions are disregarded out of fear of the enemy.
(1800)
The only way to conquer fear and stop the enemy is to play with fundamental rights. That can lead to an impasse that could jeopardize everything we believe in — the benchmarks I had when I was in the field, the rule of law, human rights, equality among human beings, respect for human beings. These benchmarks were instilled in me here, and they helped me fulfil my duties. To ensure that these benchmarks are maintained, we have legislation. As legislators, our primary responsibility is to ensure that this legislation corresponds to the rule of law, and that people are protected to the full extent of our intellectual, physical and human capacities.
(Debate suspended.)
Canada
Third Reading
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lang, for the third reading of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Furey, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, that Bill C-6 be not now read a third time but that it be amended:
(a) in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing line 29 with the following:
"importation, packaging, storing for sale, advertising,";
(b) in clause 20,
(i) on page 10, by replacing line 38 with the following:
"imported, packaged, stored for sale, advertised, sold,", and
(ii) on page 11, by replacing line 41 with the following:
"packages, stores for sale, advertises, sells, labels, tests";
(c) in clause 21,
(i) on page 12,
(A) by deleting lines 16 to 35, and
(B) by replacing lines 36 and 37 with the following:
"21. (1) If the inspector obtains a warrant authorizing entry into a place mentioned in subsection 20(1), the inspector may not use force in executing the warrant", and
(ii) on page 13, by replacing lines 1 to 3 with the following:
"(2) If an inspector believes that it would not be practical to appear personally to make an application for a warrant referred to in subsection (1), a";
(d) in clause 31, on page 15, by replacing line 22 with the following:
"packaging, storing for sale, advertising, selling, label-"; and
(e) in clause 36, on page 18,
(i) by replacing line 18 with the following:
"tion, packaging, storing for sale, sale, advertising,", and
(ii) by replacing line 23 with the following:
"tion, packaging, storing for sale, sale, advertising,";
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Banks, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, that Bill C-6 be not now read a third time but that it be amended:
(a) in clause 15, on page 9,
(i) by replacing lines 12 and 13 with the following:
"15. (1) The Minister may disclose personal information related to a consumer product to a person or a government that", and
(ii) by replacing lines 17 to 19 with the following:
"relates if
(a) the disclosure is necessary to identify or address a serious danger to human health or safety; and
(b) the person to whom or government to which the information may be disclosed agrees in writing to maintain the confidentiality of the information and to use it only for the purpose of carrying out those functions.
(2) The Minister shall provide prior notice of the intended disclosure to the individual to whom the personal information relates unless doing so would endanger human health or safety.
(3) If the Minister discloses personal information under subsection (1) without providing prior notice, he or she shall, as soon as practicable but not later than six months after the disclosure, notify the individual to whom the personal information relates."; and
(b) in clause 56, on page 31, by replacing line 5 with the following:
"violation has a defence by reason".
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): I move the adjournment of the debate.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will signify by saying "yea."
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will signify by saying "nay."
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the "yeas" have it.
And two honourable senators having risen:
The Hon. the Speaker: Is there advice from the whips?
Senator Stratton: A one-hour bell.
The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will take place at five minutes after 9.
Call in the senators.
(2100)
Motion negatived on the following division:
YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
|
Andreychuk |
Manning |
|
Brazeau |
Martin |
|
Carignan |
Meighen |
|
|
Mockler |
|
Comeau |
Nancy Ruth |
|
Demers |
Nolin |
|
Di Nino |
Ogilvie |
|
Duffy |
Oliver |
|
Eaton |
Patterson |
|
Finley |
Plett |
|
Fortin-Duplessis |
Raine |
|
Frum |
Rivard |
|
Gerstein |
Segal |
|
Greene |
Seidman |
|
Housakos |
Stewart Olsen |
|
Keon |
Stratton |
|
Lang |
Tkachuk |
|
LeBreton |
Wallace |
|
MacDonald |
Wallin—38 |
NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
|
Baker |
Kenny |
|
Banks |
Lapointe |
|
Callbeck |
Losier-Cool |
|
|
Lovelace Nicholas |
|
Carstairs |
Mahovlich |
|
Cools |
Massicotte |
|
Cordy |
Mercer |
|
Cowan |
Milne |
|
Dallaire |
Mitchell |
|
|
|
|
Day |
Munson |
|
Downe |
Pépin |
|
Dyck |
Peterson |
|
Eggleton |
Poulin |
|
Fairbairn |
Ringuette |
|
Fox |
Robichaud |
|
Fraser |
Rompkey |
|
Furey |
Smith |
|
Hervieux-Payette |
Stollery |
|
Hubley |
Tardif |
|
Jaffer |
Watt |
|
Joyal |
Zimmer—44 |
ABSTENTIONSTHE HONOURABLE SENATORS
|
Rivest—1 |
(2110)
[Translation]
Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, I have returned — as a general once said during the Second World War — and pleased to resume the debate on this fundamental dilemma of human rights and the right to access to health, and respect for health.
I only have a few moments left to say that it is essential not to undermine — through a real and essential need — a fundamental right under the rule of law, in other words, human rights. We can neither manipulate nor amend this concept that is one of the fundamental laws of our country.
Without Senator Furey's amendment, I do not see how we can honestly be in tune with the human rights that are enshrined in our Constitution.
[English]
The Hon. the Speaker: Is there continuing debate?
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I was the one who, last time around, adjourned the debate and then, Senator Dallaire was recognized and I was not. I assumed that I was the one to continue speaking.
Be that as it may, honourable senators, I note that there have been a great number of important changes proposed throughout the day to this extremely important bill, the implications of which are far-reaching and serious.
I think the opposition will understand if some of us on this side want to be able to reflect and consider.
I can understand why they placed Senator Mercer dead centre.
Senator Mercer: That is so I can get at you, Senator Comeau.
Senator Cowan: You have a couple over there. Do not worry about it.
Senator Comeau: We try to place them as far away as we can, not dead centre.
There have been some extremely serious amendments proposed to this bill. It is important that our side be able to reflect on and consider the impact of those proposals. I think it would be important as well for the government to look at the impact of what is proposed through these amendments.
It is important for all of us, not only this side but the other side as well, to reflect on some of the implications of the proposed changes. Because of that, we can all do with a good night's sleep. It is past 9:15now. I see a lot of eyes that are starting to become a bit blurry. I did not attend any of the parties tonight. I only had ginger ale. I think I am fine.
I therefore propose, honourable senators, that we do now adjourn the Senate.
The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Comeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton, that the Senate do now adjourn. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the motion please say "yea."
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion please say "nay."
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the "yeas" have it.
And two honourable senators having risen:
The Hon. the Speaker: Call in the senators.
Hon. Terry Stratton: We propose a one-hour bell.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the vote will take place at quarter after 10.
Do I have permission to leave the chair?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(2210)
Motion negatived on the following division:
YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
|
Andreychuk |
Manning |
|
Brazeau |
Martin |
|
Carignan |
Meighen |
|
|
Mockler |
|
Comeau |
Nancy Ruth |
|
Demers |
Nolin |
|
Di Nino |
Ogilvie |
|
Duffy |
Oliver |
|
Eaton |
Patterson |
|
Finley |
Plett |
|
Fortin-Duplessis |
Raine |
|
Frum |
Rivard |
|
Gerstein |
Segal |
|
Greene |
Seidman |
|
Housakos |
Stewart Olsen |
|
Keon |
Stratton |
|
Lang |
Tkachuk |
|
LeBreton |
Wallace |
|
MacDonald |
Wallin—38 |
NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
|
Baker |
Lapointe |
|
Banks |
Losier-Cool |
|
Callbeck |
Lovelace Nicholas |
|
|
Mahovlich |
|
Carstairs |
Massicotte |
|
Cools |
McCoy |
|
Cordy |
Mercer |
|
Cowan |
Milne |
|
Dallaire |
Mitchell |
|
|
|
|
Day |
Munson |
|
Downe |
Pépin |
|
Dyck |
Peterson |
|
Eggleton |
Poulin |
|
Fairbairn |
Ringuette |
|
Fraser |
Robichaud |
|
Furey |
Rompkey |
|
Hubley |
Smith |
|
Jaffer |
Stollery |
|
Joyal |
Tardif |
|
Kenny |
Watt—42 |
ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
|
Rivest—1 |
(2220)
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, this is the chamber of sober second thought. I indicated earlier that we should reflect on what we are doing in this chamber. Had you been listening, Dr. Keon should have given you a great many reasons for reflection. He indicated that he had been in contact with consumer groups. What struck me especially was that Dr. Keon indicated that 70,000 doctors had recommended to this chamber that we pass this bill, and one of the reasons for passing this bill was the 18,000 visits to emergency hospitals and centres every year by children because of the dangers that this bill is trying to address.
Who do we listen to? Do we listen to the Canadian Medical Association and its 70,000 doctors, as Dr. Keon has indicated, or do we listen to Terry Mercer, who is able to get his voice probably — Senator Mercer, I apologize —
Senator Mercer: Do you want to hear my voice?
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, Oh.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, where are we? Can honourable senators help the Speaker?
Senator Day on a point of order?
Senator Banks on a point of order?
Senator Banks: Your Honour, we were on debate on the amendments that are before us, and the honourable Deputy Leader of the Government referred to a member here by his name without any appellation of "honourable" or "Senator" in front, and that honourable senator stood and raised a point of order, which has not yet been heard.
The Hon. the Speaker: Was Senator Mercer raising a point of order?
Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Your Honour, I have an opinion on this bill, as many other people in this chamber do, but Senator Comeau wants to walk around here and poke people in the eye with a sharp stick. We could be here all night, tomorrow, Saturday and next week.
Senator Comeau, similar to the person sitting to his left, shows little respect for the people on this side. The Leader of the Government in the Senate today demonstrated to everyone in this chamber and everyone in the gallery her lack of respect not only for the process but also for the people. It is the first time in memory, and I canvassed my colleagues as we have gone on the breaks, Senator LeBreton, that anybody can remember when the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the leader of the other party, whether on the government side or the opposition side, did not show up when someone has retired from this chamber.
Senator LeBreton, we noticed it and we will remember it. All those people sitting behind you noticed it. They noticed your lack of respect for individuals, and they will notice the lack of respect you had for them, for us and, in particular, for our good friend Senator Milne.
Your Honour, my point of order is this: If Senator Comeau wants to debate with me, I am happy to debate with him. I am ready for this debate. We need to address this important piece of legislation, and we need to address now the amendments put forward by my good friend from
I propose that, whatever the process is, we need to get at and get at it fast.
The Hon. the Speaker: Order, please.
I thank honourable senators for helping the Speaker understand what has transpired. As Senator Banks has indicated, our rules provide for a proper address in the house. Senator Comeau alluded to that a few moments ago, so I consider the matter settled.
We are on debate with Senator Comeau.
Senator Comeau: To be absolutely certain for anyone who might have missed the fact, my voice was drowned out at that point, but I did apologize to the honourable senator. I believe, if he goes back and checks over my record, whenever I have been in error, and I believe everyone can make mistakes occasionally, including myself, I have always apologized. I have always apologized if I was out of order. I have always done that, and I think both sides will agree.
Getting back to the debate on Bill C-6, I was referring to what Senator Keon has indicated earlier in regard to the Canadian Medical Association, and the extremely important attachment that fathers and mothers have for this bill. We have to understand that there is a certain balance here. There are privacy rights, and it is well and just that we respect privacy rights. On the other hand, we have safety, and safety is also a right of our young Canadians. If we do not care for their safety, they will not grow up to be healthy senior Canadians.
(2230)
Honourable senators, there is a balance and this bill tries to balance the rights to privacy. I believe Senator Milne will agree that I have a great attachment for privacy as we have had some debates on this subject in the past. I do believe in privacy; however, I also believe in the safety of our children. They are our future, and if we are not prepared to balance in an equitable way those two rights then I think we are a complete failure as a chamber.
Honourable senators, we should continue to reflect, as I indicated earlier, on the serious impact of the amendments that have been proposed today in this chamber, and for that reason I move the adjournment of the debate.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Hon. the Speaker: The Honourable Senator Comeau is moving the adjournment of the debate for the time remaining to him, so I will put that question. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Comeau — point of order, Senator Cools.
Point of Order
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, on a point of order, I am just wondering whether this is the first time or the second time Senator Comeau has spoken in this debate.
Some Hon. Senators: Second time.
Senator Cools: I could be wrong, but I believe that about an hour or so ago Senator Comeau spoke and said largely what he said now, but we are still on the same point. He is not on the main bill because the amendments have not been disposed of. Is it not the same question that Senator Comeau spoke to before? The question has not moved. There has been no vote on the question.
I am wondering how many times Senator Comeau is allowed to speak in the same debate if he has already spoken, and I am not absolutely certain that my memory is correct. However, I seem to recall that Senator Comeau spoke a little while ago and moved an adjournment. He, in point of fact, has already spoken for his one time on the question that is before us. The question before us is not the motion to adjourn. He has just moved that motion, but his speech leading up to the motion to adjourn would be on the question.
It seems to me he has spoken twice on the same question. The rules tell us that a senator may speak once on every question and for not more than 15 minutes. Therefore we have to determine what really happened, so maybe the table could indicate to us whether I am mistaken that he did speak before. I am prepared to be corrected.
Senator Comeau is a very just man. When he uttered that apology to Senator Mercer he was most sincere. I can vouch for that because I have dealt with Senator Comeau many times in the past and he is generous in extending apologies with great sincerity. I mean that with great sincerity.
Honourable senators, we must clarify whether Senator Comeau has spoken twice on the same order. His Honour has ways of communicating with the table but I do not know how we can establish that.
Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I agree with Senator Cools that Senator Comeau has spoken twice. I expect that the table officers would be able to confirm this.
In fact, Your Honour, I had risen to speak at the same time as Senator Comeau, assuming he was going to adjourn the debate. I did not believe he was going to speak once again.
Therefore, I believe that he is out of order and I would now like to speak.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, we are going through a procedure which is not uncommon, used in times of, say, a certain amount of stress around here, so you go from an adjournment motion, you then try to adjourn the Senate and when that does not work you go to another adjournment motion.
However, what has always been the case in my 15 years here is that the government, and/or the opposition, whoever is trying to go through this adjournment process, always puts up an alternate speaker. In this case they did not put up a different speaker; they put up exactly the same speaker who, in essence, gave exactly the same speech.
That is out of order, honourable senators.
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I spoke twice this evening. I tried to take the debate earlier this evening. Senator Dallaire was recognized in my place; therefore I could not have spoken at that time.
What I did when I first spoke was to move the adjournment of the Senate, which is what happened. There was a question of the adjournment of the Senate, at which point we had a vote. We have voted. Because the Senate was not adjourned someone had to speak, and I just spoke on the debate. Those are the two times that I spoke.
Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, I do not know the rules and interpreting them is up to His Honour.
My recollection is that Senator Comeau has moved three motions tonight in the last little while. The first was to adjourn the debate; the second was to adjourn the Senate; and the most recent, the third motion, was to adjourn the debate again.
My recollection is that in the first and third of those two instances Senator Comeau rose, after His Honour said "on debate", and Senator Comeau, on each of that first occasion and third occasion spoke to the bill. He spoke to the amendments that are before us and therefore spoke on debate on the issue before us. If the rules do not permit senators to speak twice on a particular subject in one session, I will leave that to His Honour to determine. That is my recollection of what happened.
Hon. Joan Fraser: My recollection is similar to that of Senator Banks'. I would simply observe that it is within our practice to allow senators to ask for the debate to be adjourned for the balance of their time. However, I did not hear Senator Comeau do that on either intervention. Therefore I think it is true. The first time he did not, so he spoke twice.
Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I am prepared to be corrected, as I said before. I am hearing a sense of uneasiness about what is going on, as though somehow or the other certain senators are acting in an improper or an irregular way. I would like to say, honourable senators, that a good filibuster is a work of art and to be admired. It takes skill and ability to do cut and thrust and to get to one's feet fast and with a very quick mind. I greatly respect good filibusters. I have taken part in several and I intend to take part in a few more.
I do also believe that when one is on the side of the principle, one is more likely to be successful because one can be inspired and motivated by principle and a sense of justice and righteousness.
As I said before, I am sympathetic to filibusters, but this one is unusual because it is not motivated by an idea or principle. What we have here is a filibuster on the part of the government which is attempting to delay the debate and to bring on the debate on its own bill and its own initiative. That is most unusual.
We have a government that is now acting like an opposition, using delay tactics, but unfortunately unable to mobilize many forces to conduct a delay, to conduct the filibuster.
(2240)
Senator Comeau should have 10 or 12 people behind him, jumping up after him, each one moving the adjournment in turn. If honourable senators would like, I will really get involved in it. I am not. I am only observing what is happening.
In any event, the only question that has been before us for the last two hours has been the motion to amend the main question by the amendments. That question has been consistently before us. It has not changed. Whether Senator Comeau moved the motion to adjourn the Senate or the debate, it still does not matter. The question that he was rising to speak to was on those amendments.
His moving a motion to adjourn does not make the motion to adjourn the question that he spoke to. It may make it the question for the next senator to speak to, but not the question he was speaking to.
The question that Senator Comeau spoke to in both of those instances was the motion to amend, one of the motions to amend, Bill C-6. I do not remember which amendment it was. There is nothing wrong with, as I said before, trying to delay, but the same person cannot do the job all by themselves; one needs a variety of voices.
If the government wants to employ this technique, then they should at least do it with a range of voices. They cannot use one voice to move the adjournment of the bill, the adjournment of the debate, the adjournment of the bill and then the adjournment of the debate. The question is sustaining and subsisting all the way through.
The question before us is the amendment. I hope I am making myself clear. I am tired, but I hope it is clear. There is no doubt that if Senator Comeau spoke before, his second speech was out of order. That is nothing to be ashamed of because Senator Comeau is working hard to defend something that is a little hard to defend. I am sympathetic to him in this attempt. I do not think this matter is funny because often, many of us leave a huge burden on the shoulders of those who lead. I have worked over the years to try to alleviate that burden.
All I am trying to say to honourable senators is that this is what has happened. Some honourable senators may be snickering because they think this is unnecessary. The real fact of the matter is, what is happening here is that the government wants to arrest the debate on Bill C-6 for reasons they have not yet revealed. I want to make that point.
I am sure that Senator Comeau, as always, operates with good intentions and good motivations. There is no doubt here about his motivation. There is no motivation here to do anything wrong. What is happening before —
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, on the point of order that has been raised, I clearly have to examine the record to understand and give a reasonable and reasoned decision. I thank honourable senators for their contribution. I will do so and report back. I will undertake to report on this point of order at the next sitting of the Senate so there is no delay caused by the chair.