Senate.

• Author: Charles Robert

Throughout this Parliament, the Senate has attracted considerable attention, certainly more than it usually receives. Much of this has been because the Government lacks an absolute majority in the appointed Chamber and has seen some of its legislation closely scrutinized and even defeated.

Towards the end of the first session, the numerical scales just barely tipped in favour of the Government. With the unexpected resignation of a Tory Senator and his replacement by a Liberal appointee, the standings of the Senate became 51 Government, 50 Opposition and 3 Independent. With the support of the independents, the Government could hope to successfully manage its legislation. At the start of the new session in late February, the Government obtained majority representation in all Senate standing committees. Consequently, the prospect of delay at the committee-stage consideration of a bill virtually disappeared. Nonetheless, the Government's slim plurality was not enough to assure the passage of all its legislation. This fact was highlighted dramatically with the fate of Bill C-28, the Pearson Airport Agreements Bill.

The persistence of the Government in attempting to cancel these agreements that had been signed just before the previous Government was defeated at the last general election has been matched by the Opposition attempts to fight it.

When the Government tried to move second reading on Bill C-28 late last April, the Opposition were quick to propose procedural objections. The first point of order claimed that the debate could not proceed because the matter was before the courts and because passage of the bill would nullify retroactively a valid court decision. A second point of order challenged the procedures by which the bill had been sent from the House of Commons to the Senate. The Opposition claimed that the bill was not properly before the Senate because it had not actually been debated by the House of Commons and, in addition, because it was not in the same form as the previous version, Bill C-22 including the amendments that had been adopted by the Senate, though not accepted by the House.

In both cases the Speaker, Gildas Molgat, ruled that the points of order were not sufficiently proved. Decisions of the court relating to the status of the agreements, according to the Speaker, could not be used to prevent the Senate from considering Bill C-28 and the way in which the House of Commons adopted the bill was not the proper concern of...