Proceedings of the Committee of Selection
Issue 2 - Evidence
Ottawa, Tuesday, March 26, 1996
The Senate Committee of Selection met this day, at 11:30 a.m., for the purpose of nominating senators to serve on the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, the Joint Committee on Official Languages and the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct.
Senator Jacques Hébert (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, the first item on the agenda is nomination of senators to serve on the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament. The motion reads:
THAT, notwithstanding Rule 86(1)(a), the members serving on the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be as follows:
Senator Petten: For the Liberal side, I nominate Senators Riel and Gigantès.
Senator Kinsella: I nominate Senator Bolduc.
Senator Corbin: How many members do the House of Commons have?
Senator Kinsella: They have seven; Adams, Gallaway, Karygiannis, Mayfield, Mercier, O'Brien and Skoke.
The Chairman: According to the rules, we can go up to 17 members. That is a lot. We have never had that many.
Are these nominations agreed to?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Corbin: I have an even more fundamental preoccupation with this committee. Has it ever met in the last 20 years?
The Chairman: Yes, I believe it did. When I arrived 12 years ago, I was a member of that committee and was once called for a meeting. I have just heard that during the last session they had 12 meetings, which is not bad.
Senator Corbin: It is an improvement over year one.
The Chairman: The second item is nomination of senators to serve on the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
Senator Kinsella: I move:
THAT the members serving on the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations be as follows:
Senators Grimard, Cogger and Kelly and, if you wish, I can add Lewis, Rizzuto, Taylor, Maheu and Anderson.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The third item is the Joint Committee on Official Languages. The motion is:
THAT, notwithstanding Rule 86(1)(e), the members serving on the Joint Committee on Official Languages be as follows:
Senator Marchand: I nominate, for the Liberal side, Senators Roux and Robichaud.
The Chairman: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Kinsella: From our side, I nominate Senators Rivest and Beaudoin.
The Chairman: Are there to be two on each side? I think there is to be a total of only three.
Senator Kinsella: It is just that the list I have has two names on it.
The Chairman: Personally, I have no problem if they have one more.
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: It is just that it is a joint committee.
Senator Kinsella: There are seven from the House of Commons; Allmand, Bellemare, Gagnon, Godfrey, Marchand, Ringma and Serré. Where is it written that that committee is composed of seven MPs and three senators? In our rule 86(1)(e) it says there are to be nine senators. So what would obviate four senators where we can name nine?
Senator Petten: What is the total number on the committee then?
Senator Kinsella: Our rules say that there are nine senators.
Senator Petten: On each joint committee?
Senator Kinsella: Yes; rule 86(1)(e).
The Chairman: However, we have never had that many. That is why we have this notwithstanding clause in the motion. The point is that apparently there was some misunderstanding of some sort. Is there any problem with the Conservatives having one more? It would make four senators altogether.
Senator Kinsella: And seven members of Parliament.
Mr. O'Brien: It does upset not only the normal balance within the Senate and the House of Commons but also the party balances within that committee considering the members from the House of Commons as well.
I am just wondering whether you would like to postpone the nomination of that committee until it is settled.
Senator Kinsella: I would be more interested in a substantive argument as to why the joint committee cannot be composed of 11 members.
Senator Petten: In that event, could our side not nominate another, then we would have five; two and three. That would balance it out on this side. If they have a problem over there, that is not our problem.
Mr. O'Brien: That would increase the size of the joint committee to 12 members.
The Chairman: Would that suit you?
Senator Kinsella: I have no objection.
The Chairman: So we have to add one more.
Senator Corbin: The House of Commons may not like equality in this instance. If time is not of the essence; if that committee does not want to get under way later this week, why do we not just stand the item?
The Chairman: If they meet later this week, there will be no senators around. We should send some senators there to settle the matter if we want to increase the number.
Senator Corbin: The number is the responsibility of the whips in each house. It is not a problem that this committee has to settle. Perhaps it could be settled within an hour; I do not know. There is a difficulty there because the Liberals in the Senate are entitled to a majority representation.
The Chairman: If we have two and three, we have a majority.
Senator Petten: We are talking about adding one more.
The Chairman: We are talking of adding one more on our side, which means Roux, Robichaud and another one.
Senator Corbin: So there would be five senators against seven members of the House of Commons. Do you know that they will accept that?
The Chairman: Our rules say that we can go as high as nine.
Senator Corbin: Do it your way, but normally there must be an understanding between Houses.
The Chairman: Yes, I know, but if they object on the other side, there is still time to come back here and try to settle it among us or among the whips.
Senator Corbin: In any case, if we report to the house today and adopt the report today, the House of Commons will not see this before tomorrow.
The Chairman: Who do you wish to add to Roux and Robichaud?
Senator Corbin: I propose Senator Petten.
Senator Petten: I decline.
Senator Kinsella: A tradition which I understand that committee tries to respect is to have a number of members who are anglophone. The only ones I see there from the House of Commons are Godfrey and Ringma. Another tradition of that joint committee is to have one of the co-chairs, from either the House of Commons or here, being anglophone and the other being francophone. The last time we had a Committee of Selection around this, they had not named any members and they asked us to name our senators as they needed to have an anglophone senator to be a co-chair. Senator Petten's name seems to meet that test.
The Chairman: We could find an anglophone who is bilingual. If one of our members will accept temporarily, I will change it at the next possible date.
If you will accept for now, Senator Poulin, I will change it later.
Senator Poulin: That is a good deal.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The fourth item is nomination of senators to serve on the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct. The motion reads:
THAT, the members serving on the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct be as follows:
Senator Kinsella: I nominate Senators Bosa, Gauthier, Stollery, Oliver, Spivak, Di Nino and Angus.
The Chairman: You may notice that there is one more on the Conservative side, but that was agreed upon between the leaders on the two sides.
Senator Corbin: The House of Commons has how many members? They must have 11, I suppose, or 12.
Senator Kinsella: I do not have it here.
Senator Corbin: In other words, Mr. Chairman, these arrangements have not been discussed or agreed to in the House of Commons.
Mr. O'Brien: The number of spots for our committee was agreed to in their motion, to which seven senators were appointed.
The Chairman: I guess what you mean is the proportion of Conservatives and Liberals. That may not have been agreed upon; I do not know.
Senator Corbin: I am talking about numbers between both Houses.
The Chairman: The numbers have been agreed to.
Senator Corbin: What is their number?
The Chairman: We do not have it here, unfortunately, but it would be higher, I would presume.
They would have 14, apparently.
Senator Corbin: It is important for us to know. We are not automatic approvers around this table. We like to know what is going on.
The Chairman: I understand that. That is why we try to give you facts.
Senator Corbin: It took a while.
The Chairman: It took a while because we did not have it at hand.
Senator Corbin: I think in the future we ought to have those matters.
The Chairman: You are perfectly right, and I suggest that you could be the next chairman of the Committee of Selection in order that we will be sure to have all these things.
Senator Corbin: You are ex officio.
The Chairman: I cannot delegate that to you?
Senator Corbin: No.
The Chairman: Okay.
Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The fifth item is to report nominations to Senate. The motion reads:
THAT the Chairman report to the Senate the nominations agreed to at this day's meeting.
Senator Lewis: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Are there any other matters?
Senator MacDonald: Yes. I have asked before and I have never got an answer: What ever happened to the most important joint committee on the Parliamentary Restaurant? I consider the restaurant to be much more important than, for example, the committee on the code of conduct. For some reason, it has disappeared off the face of the earth. I was told that there was a disagreement about the 70-30 split between the Senate and the House of Commons. Then the House of Commons took over and look what has happened. The prices have gone up in inverse proportion to the quality of the food. It is "ptomaine alley" up there.
Someone should take an interest in the restaurant committee. I have volunteered several times. No one likes booze or food more than I, or knows more about it, and I want to know why we do not have a joint committee on the restaurant, sharing costs and taking an interest in it. It has disappeared and for some reason there has been no explanation.
The Chairman: I agree totally with you. I always wondered about that myself. I was not the whip when it disappeared, but I am interested in the restaurant. I think it is awful. The food is bad and the prices are going up.
Senator MacDonald: Do you know, Mr. O'Brien, what happened?
Mr. O'Brien: I do know that the Senate sent a message a few years ago to the House of Commons requesting them to re-establish the joint committee. In our rules it is listed as a standing joint committee. It was constituted at one time but the committee never met and I think the House of Commons has abolished this committee from its rule book.
The Chairman: Are you sure?
Mr. O'Brien: It is not in their rule book.
The Chairman: So what can we do?
Mr. O'Brien: We did send a message asking them to reappoint the committee, to which they did not reply.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could send a message again.
Senator Marchand: Perhaps from our Speaker to theirs.
Senator Lewis: It comes under the Speaker now.
The Chairman: At what level should these talks take place? Is it between whips or at another level?
Senator MacDonald: It does come under the control of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The Chairman: Should we as a committee request our Speaker to send a message that we want to have this committee reinstalled?
Senator MacDonald: I think so.
Senator Marchand: I agree with that.
The Chairman: Would you like to make a proposal which could be included in the report that I present this afternoon?
Senator Poulin: Do you have a suggestion, Mr. O'Brien, for wording?
Mr. O'Brien: If I recall, we did send a message to the House of Commons. We did not name anyone. We simply said that the Senate is in favour of the re-establishment of a standing joint committee on the Parliamentary Restaurant.
Senator Corbin: There is another committee of the Senate which has an interest in this, and that is Internal Economy, because of budget or services to senators.
Senator MacDonald: I spoke to Senator Kenny about this. He was not quite sure. When was that letter sent?
Mr. O'Brien: It was a message in the last Parliament. We certainly could find it.
Senator Corbin: I am prepared to make a motion to the effect that this committee request the Speaker to initiate discussions for the re-establishment of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Restaurant.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could mention our rule, because it is in our rules. It may have disappeared from the rules of the other side, but we still have it.
Are you formally moving that motion?
Senator Corbin: Yes.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I gather you would volunteer to be on that committee eventually.
Senator MacDonald: Absolutely; preferably as chairman.
The Chairman: We would all welcome that.
There being no other matters, I would gladly accept an adjournment motion.
Senator Corbin: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.