Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, August 12, 1997
[English]
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 10:00 a.m.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I thank everyone for coming here on such a beautiful summer day to work on behalf of this institution.
I would direct your attention to the documents circulated. The first item is to announce that this meeting is taking place during the period of dissolution, and pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, sections 19.1(1), (2) and (3). I must now ask if it is agreed that we go in camera for this portion of the meeting.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public session)
The Chairman: Are there items of business for the public session?
Senator Nolin: I believe there is still the approval of the minutes to be dealt with.
The Chairman: Could I have a motion for the approval of the minutes?
Senator Nolin: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you. These minutes have been well approved.
Are there other matters that senators would like to raise? If not, I would thank you all for your patience during this very long meeting. It was productive.
The committee adjourned.
OTTAWA, Monday, September 22, 1997
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 4:00 p.m. to consider its agenda.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I should like to apologize to everyone. It is the custom of the Senate not to have committee meetings when caucuses are meeting. We had a caucus meeting that went on a little longer than normal. To those of you who were patiently waiting here, thank you very much. I will try to make up for it by moving quickly.
The first portion of this meeting is public. We will go in camera around item No. 7, but items one through seven are public. We will seek approval of the in camera portion of the previous in camera minutes later in the day.
Have members of the committee had an opportunity to review the minutes you have before you from the meeting of August 12? It should be right after the agenda in the main document. If you have not had a chance to look at it, I will give you time to do so now.
Senator Carstairs: All that was agreed to in the public meeting was that the minutes be approved.
The Chairman: That is all that was agreed to. Are there any comments?
Are the minutes approved?
Senator Forrestall: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Carried.
The next item is updates. The first one is CPAC. There is no documentation but everyone here is aware that we have signed a contract with CPAC for up to 32 hours a month of televising of Senate committees and that that contract has now been extended for another five months, that being the first five months of the new Parliament. All the committee rooms are in the course of being hard wired for a feed to go out. I should like to stress, because it has come up in the chamber at least once, that any television arrangements must be in accord with existing rules of the Senate.
Very briefly, the committee first needs to get approval of the Senate as a whole. It can either get approval for a specific event or it can get blanket approval for general televising. Then each committee must decide before each meeting whether it wants to be televised. So the authority for televising rests entirely with, first, the Senate and then the committee. Our agreement is only an enabling document which makes provision for television.
Committee clerks have received media training over the course of the summer in order to assist senators. During dissolution we had a series of interviews with chairmen and deputy chairmen -- Senators Kirby and Angus from the Banking committee and Senators DeWare and Bosa from the committee on social affairs.
Senator Carstairs, did you do the same with Senator Nolin on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee?
Senator Carstairs: Yes, last Friday.
The Chairman: That is terrific. Senator Oliver from the committee on Code of Conduct has participated as well.
All the feedback to date has been positive and I would welcome any other feedback. We are still trying to make similar arrangements with former chairmen and joint chairmen of other committees, as well as with the leaders of both the government and the opposition and with the three independents.
The Speaker has also undertaken to do a guided tour of the precinct. I believe he will do that in the next week or so.
The other item on which I want to report to you that has developed in the last three weeks vis-à-vis CPAC is that we have undertaken to assist in the production of a weekly show referred to as "The Senate". It is to be an hour long and is to be broadcast at 9 o'clock on Friday nights and at 7 o'clock on Sunday nights. It will feature interviews with individual senators regarding their activities as senators or the areas in which they specialize. It will be more or less along the lines of the first interviews that we had with the committee chairmen, where the interviewer asked the senators how they got involved and to speak about the issues that are important to them as senators before going into their committee work.
Senator Milne: I am wondering about that. Did they come to us?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Milne: CPAC thought we were so interesting that they wanted to do a program on us every Friday night?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Milne: Have we already entered into an iron-clad agreement with them?
The Chairman: It is not iron-clad but we certainly indicated that we are not opposed to the idea. It is up to us to produce a senator once a week.
Senator Milne: That I think might be the drawback.
The Chairman: Well, in about 15 minutes we came up with a list of 30 or 40 senators who had some expertise in specific topics that would make good interview subjects.
Senator Cohen: I think that this would be a plus. It would raise awareness of the work that we do as senators and show that credible work is being done. The more we can promote that image the more advantageous it is to us because there is so much cynicism out there.
Senator LeBreton: Considering some of the activities of some of the senators in committees, I do not think we will have any difficulty at all filling that spot.
Is it to air only when Parliament is sitting?
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Principal Clerk, committees Branch: Primarily, yes.
Senator Carstairs: My concern comes from my own interview situations, of which I went through two this summer. The problem was trying to find a time when CPAC could do the interview. We went through weeks when they were busy doing this or that. They asked whether I could fly down in order to make myself available. In this case we were trying to juggle the schedules of Senator Nolin and myself.
Will they free a specific time during the week, preferably on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, when senators are here, in order to do this program? If they want to do a taping at three o'clock Friday afternoon, we know that many senators simply will not be here. That means that perhaps we would end up with the same senators over and over again, which I do not think is what we want.
Have arrangements been made about when they would actually tape this program?
The Chairman: They indicated a degree of flexibility. They also indicated that they would be prepared to do some banking, in fact. These are not necessarily time-dated types of interviews.
However, I do not think, particularly since the equipment is ours, that there will be any problem in finding time that is convenient to the senators. I think that to some extent the summer was unique. Mr. O'Brien can correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that they have indicated a fair amount of enthusiasm based on the response they got to the initial interviews and that they want to accommodate us regarding the production.
Senator Cohen: With regard to what Senator Carstairs has just said, if they are serious about this, if they are enthusiastic, as you say, and if they can plan in advance, then many senators would not mind staying over for a Friday afternoon. That is to say, if they know in advance that they will be needed just once, then they will not mind.
The Chairman: My guess is that we will have a bank in which there are two or three in the can ahead of time rather than risk them having dead air.
Are there any other comments?
Senator Poulin: Mr. Chairman, I think this meets the objective we discussed over two years ago in terms of making the Senate more accessible, more visible and more open. It is becoming a reality.
One of the things that I am hearing from my colleagues here is that there is a lot of enthusiasm, but that we would like it to be well done. Is there any way of having a small group of people, perhaps, working with a producer to try to achieve as certain standard? Interviewing senators is one thing; however, there are other aspects to the Senate.
For instance, do we want our Clerk to report on a weekly basis what legislation is to come before the Senate? There are different aspects of the Senate that could be included. Is there any way that a small group could get involved in the production and work together?
The Chairman: We are counting on your good offices, as well as those of Senator Nolin. The Clerk has been making good progress in terms of finding some assistance, something about which we are not in a position to talk about now but which we will be able to talk about shortly. That will happen, senator, and you will be in the forefront.
Senator Poulin: It does not have to be me so much as some of our other colleagues.
The Chairman: I think there is a consensus that it is important that it be you, senator. I think that you and Senator Nolin have worked very well on it to date. That would be a positive thing.
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate, Clerk of the Committee: This Friday, I will be doing a dry run on a 10-minute to 15-minute weekly program similar to what the Clerk of the House of Commons used to do concerning the activities of the House. That should start as soon as the Senate commences its work.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments?
Senator Carstairs: There seems to be the impression that we will all be members of this committee after the committee of Selection is in place, and that is not necessarily a given. I do not think I will be, certainly not in the capacity that I was in prior to the commencement of this session of Parliament. I should like to see us revisit this matter at a future meeting.
The Chairman: Why do you not address that to the next chairman?
Senator Carstairs: We will do that.
Senator Forrestall: What is that supposed to mean?
The Chairman: Just exactly what I said. Senator Carstairs said that the committee will have a different makeup and that it will be their problem to deal with this matter.
Senator Carstairs: It may be the same people as are here now, but we do not know that at this point.
The Chairman: Senators should have a copy of "The Senate Today." It was delivered Friday. We have seen a variety of drafts. This draft is for members of this committee to see before the final copy goes into production.
We are not looking to reinvent the concept, but there may be things that need fixing up in this particular booklet. We would like senators to mark it up and draw the mistakes to our attention.
I believe that Senators Carstairs, Milne and De Bané wish to comment on this matter.
Senator Carstairs: There are some typos and spelling errors which need to be corrected.
Senator Milne: I have much the same thing to say. I have a list of some of the things that my staff and I have found, as well as some suggestions. I will just give that list to you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator De Bané: I wish to make two suggestions. First, I suggest that it be reviewed one more time by the Law Clerk of the Senate. Second, I suggest that a very competent French proofreader revisit this draft again. I am told there are some Anglicisms.
The Chairman: We have Mr. Audcent with us, who has been working on it. As you know, Mr. Audcent is our Law Clerk. We did not ask for a French translation, but for a separate French edition of it.
Senator Forrestall: Yes. That is what we got.
The Chairman: Do you have specific legal concerns, senator?
Senator De Bané: No. I just want to ensure that from the legal side it has been approved. As for the French language itself, as you know, it is very tricky. When I talk with people here at the translation bureau, they tell me that when they want to be absolutely certain about something it is reviewed nine times by nine different people. I am not asking for that, of course. We should have a good linguist look at it to ensure that it is correct.
The Chairman: Is there a name that you can put forward in this regard?
Senator De Bané: No, I leave it to you. I have names but they are very costly.
The Chairman: Are senators happy with the look of this publication and its general drift? Is this where you wanted to go one year ago? Generally, is it okay save for the typos?
Senator Milne: No, I am writing more.
The Chairman: How much longer are we prepared to keep on improving it?
Senator Cohen: I thought it was almost ready.
Senator Forrestall: I think it needs editing only.
The Chairman: In terms of comments, can we say two weeks and that is it?
Senator Poulin: Can you give us a date, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: How does the first week of October sound? After that, if Mr. Audcent has not heard from you by then, it is a wrap.
Mr. Bélisle: What you are saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the committee authorize the Clerk and Mr. Audcent to make corrections based upon feedback from senators.
The Chairman: Are we comfortable with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Have we determined a number for the first printing?
Mr. Mark Audcent, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: I was thinking of 200 copies for senators.
The Chairman: What are we talking about in terms of dollars, Mr. Audcent?
Mr. Audcent: I do not have the figures with me. It would be done at cost by the House of Commons.
Senator Poulin: Instead of talking numbers, could we rather talk about to whom we would like to distribute this publication? In other words, senators would have so many copies, as would schools and other institutions. Could we have some sense of that?
The Chairman: That is a good idea. This will be an internally prepared document. What we want to know is the size of the first tranche that we want to get out. I have no difficulty while soliciting views on the editorial changes gathering views as to the groups to which we might like to distribute this publication.
Senator Wood: Is this publication being produced in any other format?
Mr. Audcent: Yes.
Senator Wood: What is the other format?
Mr. Audcent: The proposal would be to also reproduce it on the Senate presses for a wider distribution, and the Public Information Office of the Library of Parliament has kindly agreed that they would distribute it to the schools when they do mail-outs to the teachers in the schools.
Senator Wood: It will be much less expensive than this.
Mr. Audcent: It will be a less expensive version.
The Chairman: Both will be printed in-house, but this is a heftier version.
Senator Forrestall: We might, I hope, pass along to the teachers' federation one or two copies, because, in large measure, they are concerned about material being sent out by institutional groups such as ours being less than adequate for classroom usage. It might be interesting to have their feedback. It would also be an acknowledgement that an institution such as the Senate and the teachers' federation have worked together.
The Chairman: They had a heavy hand in rewriting the booklet.
Senator Bélisle: We sent one of the later drafts to the teachers' association at the high school level for their feedback, and this was incorporated into the document.
Senator Forrestall: That is excellent.
Senator Poulin: What would be the difference between this and the other copy to which you refer? Can we have an indication of the difference?
Mr. Audcent: I do not have a copy of the other version to show you, but one of my objectives in the other copy would be to produce something that photocopies better than this one does. This copy is not particularly good for photocopying, and a black and white copy will photocopy much better. If you are a teacher in the school, you will be able to share it much more widely if it photocopies well. That would be an objective.
Senator Forrestall: When was the picture taken? In the 1890s?
Senator Carstairs: I also must admit I do not particularly like the picture, to pre-empt Senator Forrestall. I do not like the lack the clarity on it, and I particularly do not like the lack of clarity of the emblem, the coat of arms, but I do not know if anything can be done about those things.
However, I do want to talk about what would go to the schools. I agree with Mr. Audcent completely that there should be a copy that goes out to the schools which is easily reproduced so that if teachers want to make copies for the kids in their class, they can do so. On the other hand, I think a copy of this sort should go out to each school in order to include as a permanent addition in their library.
The two issues are quite different, it seems to me. Yes, you want something that looks like this in the library, but truly, if I had this years ago when teaching ninth grade government, I would have made copies of it and distributed it to all of the students.
Senator De Bané: The presentation and the formatting of desk-top publishing is a topic which is very subjective. If I may dare give you my personal opinion, I find that if you printed that text with an additional three or four pages, it would be more appealing. It would look less congested. There is so much text.
A modern graphic artist can do something much sexier. This one looks old-fashioned. It is very nice, but there is so much text, and it is a style that I personally find passé. Of course, it is objective. Other people may find that this is the epitome of graphic design. However, I personally find that there is too much text. Adding a few more pages with the same text would look much better.
For instance, look at the committee's reports there. It is written in very small characters. It would be nice to give to two or three graphic designers the same text and say to each, "Give me your idea on how you would do the desk-top publishing." You would have two or three different presentations, and immediately one would strike you over the others.
Senator Cohen: You will get an opposite opinion from me. I was quite attracted to the pages. I thought they were clean. I like the idea of the little blocks here. I like the idea of the script rather than the printed word. I do agree that the two pages to which Senator De Bané referred are a little crowded, but, aside from that, I find this an attractive-looking document. I wish that it would have been available to me when I became a senator.
We can probably go on for days and make it more perfect and more perfect, but I think it is a good effort and I wish to go on record as saying to those involved, "Bravo."
Senator LeBreton: To follow up on Senator Carstairs, I think the coat of arms should be clearer, but I can see a good reason for having a fuzzy picture, especially if you want a picture that will stand the test of time and if you did not want to reprint the thing. It is better to have a picture that is generic and to have a clearer coat of arms.
I agree with Senator Cohen. I find this attractive. I like the parliamentary stonework along the top. It is very attractive. We could argue until doomsday about our own personal preferences. I think it is an excellent piece of work.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments?
Senator De Bané: If I may, Senator LeBreton, what if we had two or three projects by different designers?
Senator LeBreton: Are we not getting into further costs then? We are doing this in-house, are we not?
Senator De Bané: There are many people here who are graphic designers and could take a look at that. All you need is one or two pages of examples of how they would do it. It is an artist's creation and perspective. Each can have his own. I am not sure that this is what I would call a modern graphic design. For people of our age, maybe this is nice, but imagine the same text with half the text per page that we have now, and how it would look with a larger font.
The Chairman: I have just checked with Mr. Audcent. He advises me that, thus far, we have spent $7,500 on this edition.
Senator Forrestall: Print it up.
The Chairman: There would be additional time involved in getting other copies. I am looking for a consensus here.
Senator Cohen: Fix it up and print it.
Senator Forrestall: I think we should do what we are doing now. We would revisit this issue within two or three years, certainly within the life of this current session of Parliament, to then review the work that you have solicited in the interim in terms of design. I agree with Senator De Bané that it is too tight and does not read. I look at it, and I cannot read it; I can read very rapidly, but I cannot take a picture of that. It is too tight.
Senator De Bané: There are too many characters per page. With desk-top publishing it can be done differently.
Senator Forrestall: For our purposes, we should adopt it.
Senator De Bané: Compare annual reports from today and 10 years ago. There is no resemblance whatsoever. Now they have a great deal of space and photography. You may have 15 lines of text, and there is almost half an inch between each line. It is a different kind of style today.
Senator LeBreton: How do you tell a story with 15 lines a page?
Senator De Bané: We can revisit it later.
The Chairman: We will revisit that issue when we discuss the next edition, then.
Senator Poulin: We are all proud of the fact we have finally come this far in this project; that is the good news. However, the other objective is to ensure that the first copy is impeccable. In other words, we cannot have a single error in it. It would be like a woman who comes out wearing a gorgeous dress but who has a run in her hose. We cannot have a run in our hose here.
We have to take those two weeks and really go through it with a fine comb. I hope that Mr. Audcent will not wait for the senators to do it. I hope that people, the staff -- everyone -- can have a chance to bring it home and read it.
We have excellent staff here. We should ask them for their comments. We have the opportunity in these two weeks. It must be impeccable, as Senator De Bané has said.
The Chairman: That is a good point. Mr. Audcent, do you have notes of what was asked here?
Mr. Audcent: Yes.
The Chairman: There is a consensus that we proceed with the editing; we proceed to get advice on the size of the printing; and we will wrap this up in two weeks.
The next item is the visit of the special committee which is called, in English, the Account Verification and Reconciliation committee of the French Senate. These are the folks who keep an eye on the questeurs in the French Senate. I gather they get a free run there for about three years. Then a committee of 15 sits down and audits them and decides whether they have been spending the money well.
I met with the committee members who came to Ottawa. It was a good meeting. They were particularly interested in our budgeting process. They were particularly interested in how we reviewed government spending. Senator Nolin and Senator De Bané both made excellent presentations, as did Ms Aghajanian, our Director of Finance. I think they left feeling that we keep a close eye on what is going on. At least, they gave us that impression.
Senator De Bané: Their budget is 10 times the size of ours, so they must have been impressed.
The Chairman: That is correct. We also met with two Belgian questeurs. They sent a letter after their visit. We should make copies available.
They were particularly interested in our CAT system, including the kind of work that the reporters are now doing at the end of the table. They wanted to know about the savings which are accruing to the Senate each year with this system. We made a presentation in this room. We then walked upstairs to the chamber to observe a simulation of the process. They watched the reporters write from a taping of a previous Senate proceeding. They then went over to the Victoria Building. They watched the editors actually editing while the reporters were writing. They watched Publications do the layout. Then they went downstairs to the printing room and saw a print-out of what they had just heard.
I have to tell you that the president of the questeurs remarked to me half-way through: "Magique." He just could not believe what a good job our reporters were doing. I have to second that. They do a remarkable job for us, and they put on a superb demonstration for the Belgians.
In the afternoon, Senator Nolin, together with the informatics group, gave a presentation on the Senate's strategic plan for computers. As you will see from the letter when it is circulated, we had a very positive response from them.
Senator Wood: On the visit of the Belgian questeurs, I have a very mundane question: How much did it cost us to have them here, in total?
The Chairman: The total was $1,350, including their hotel room.
Senator Wood: There was a rumour going around that it was $12,000. I wanted to dispel that.
The Chairman: Regarding the Internal Economy letter, there is a copy of that letter before you dated September 19. It summarizes the work for which this committee has been responsible. It is really here just as a matter of record so that you are aware that it has gone forward. Are there any comments?
If not we will move to the issue of pins. We arrived at the conclusion that, since there was no consensus in this room, we would let our colleagues decide if, as and when they want a pin change. If they do not, the current pin remains. Senators can go to the reading room and mark down the number that they favour and drop their vote into a ballot box.
Senator Poulin: Do we sign our ballot?
The Chairman: No, it is a secret ballot.
Senator Poulin: How will you know that Senator LeBreton and I did not vote 20 times each?
The Chairman: Because we have very vigilant Senate pages who will check off your name as soon as you drop in your ballot.
I think it will be a straight-up vote and senators can decide if they want a change.
At what point will we speak about the work which has been done on fixing up the Senate leaders' pictures?
Mr. O'Brien: That falls under "Other Business."
The Chairman: Regarding the report on Senate decisions during the dissolution of Parliament, please turn to pages 23 to 26.
Senator Forrestall: Before we move on, do we have a cost for each of these pins or is there a range of prices?
The Chairman: Yes. The cost is $15 per pin if you get the standard, regulation pin. That is what you have now. Basically, that is what Birks would charge.
Senator Forrestall: The House of Commons pin now costs more than $200.
The Chairman: There is an option, if an individual senator wants, to buy a more expensive pin in a more precious metal, but they do that at their own expense.
Senator Forrestall: I see. I did not know that.
The Chairman: It is up to you. Some senators are concerned about the clasps and how they work. I gather there are a variety of clasps available; some work better with some articles of clothing than with others. It will be possible to get whatever clasp suits the individual senator. I gather that has been an aggravation for people for a while. That is the plan.
Mr. O'Brien, will you take us through the decisions? This relates to pages 23 to 26.
Mr. O'Brien: Honourable senators, as you know, there were a number of meetings over the summer to deal with internal economy matters. The committee met pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, and it is authorized under the act to make decisions. Certainly, there was a delegation of authority to the chairman and deputy chairman of the committee to deal with a number of issues immediately after Parliament was dissolved, and they met in May. The committee then met on June 13, 1997, to deal with two matters, as you may recall, dealing with global budgets and severance packages. The committee met again in August for a full day and dealt with a number of issues. We are meeting today and tomorrow still under the guise of the Parliament of Canada Act. Any decisions made at these meetings will also be reported to the Senate.
This report lists the decisions that the committee has taken. I could go through each one of the decisions, but certainly the first part deals with a number of budget items for chairmen of committees who had requested that their administrative work go forward during the period of dissolution. These are the funds that were requested.
As honourable senators are aware, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs was also authorized to issue a report during this period of dissolution. That was done through the intersessional authority, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Any staff salaries or contract-money business was done through the committee's branch because there were no committees in operation. Those funds are still authorized until the committees start going again, which we expect to be shortly.
There was also a reaffirmation of certain decisions taken according to past practice, such as travel during prorogation or dissolution by senators. There was a decision regarding the separation packages offered to senators' secretaries, but it was noted that the implementation date of that new policy would be set back for some 22 months, to April 1, 1999, so that ample notice could be given to those affected. This was all done with the advice of outside counsel.
Senator Milne: Which of these have already passed this committee and which ones are we being asked to approve today?
Mr. O'Brien: They have all been approved.
The proposal regarding greater flexibility in the management of senators' office budgets, for example, was approved on June 14. The freeze on courier services for senators has been lifted and that service will be monitored to determine bulges in monthly spending.
I do not know if you want me to go item by item, but those are basically all the decisions up to now.
Senator Carstairs: Since this document is entitled "First Report," is it anticipated that it will be presented to the Senate? Who would report it at this point in time?
Mr. O'Brien: Pursuant to the act, this committee keeps going until the new membership comes into effect.
Senator Carstairs: In terms of item No. 9, I really regret that I was not at the meeting in August. I was in Ottawa intending to be here but I had a death in the family and was called to Vancouver. However, I must say that I am somewhat uncomfortable with our endorsing the proposals outlined in this document entitled: "Reforming the Senate Sitting Schedule and Restructuring committees." I have not participated in any debate on this particular item as yet, and as I say, it is my fault because I was not hear. However, I should like to hear what other senators think about this before I state with confidence that I endorse it. I do not like to have something going out of here saying that we have endorsed it when I am not confident that I know enough about it.
The Chairman: Well, the senators present at the time had a fairly lengthy discussion about it, and the documentation was circulated to all the senators, including the leadership. Having said that, are you suggesting a discussion on it now?
Senator Carstairs: Well, if now is the appropriate time. Certainly the will was expressed, as you know, in our caucus, that there be more discussion about this particular item.
The Chairman: As I read item No. 9, the endorsement is principally for the circulation of the document. I do not think anyone in the room would say that that document is the last word on this issue. In fact, all senators were very conscious of the fact that there was a lengthy process, that this proposal has a long road to go down before it becomes reality.
Senators really were saying that they saw sufficient merit in this proposal, that there should be broader discussion of this issue, rather than that this is the last word and this must happen. If the wording in item No. 9 were adjusted to reflect that more precisely, would that accommodate your needs?
Senator Carstairs: Absolutely. If it said that the committee endorsed the circulation of the report "Reforming the Senate," I would approve completely.
The Chairman: My impression is that that was the intention of the committee. Is that your impression as well, colleagues?
Senator Poulin: The intention of circulating it?
The Chairman: Yes, rather than saying that this is the definitive version. Rather, we were saying that this is good enough to send around to folks to start the discussion.
Senator LeBreton: It says here "circulate to all senators for their review."
The Chairman: Yes, but I think we can fix up the wording between now and tomorrow so that Senator Carstairs is comfortable with it.
Senator Carstairs: The opening sentence is to the effect that the committee endorsed the proposals. That is my only concern.
The Chairman: I believe the question was actually asked and the answer was "yes." However, I am sure we can come up with a wording that would make you feel more comfortable. Why do we not leave it with the clerk until tomorrow to see whether we can sort that out.
Senator Carstairs: All right.
The Chairman: Any other comments that relate to these decisions or this report?
I have a feeling that some of you are feeling a little rushed. If that is the case, would you like to revisit this matter again tomorrow? Would people feel more comfortable if we were doing it that way? Aside from the caveat on item No. 9 are people satisfied with this section of the report?
We will see if we can fix up item No. 9 a little better for tomorrow.
Except for item No. 9, I take it that this report is approved. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Thank you very much.
The next item is East Block, 1910 wing security. Basically, you have a document before you at pages 27 and 28. We have been responsible for security in the East Block for two years now. With the completion of the 1910 wing, we have picked up 73,000 more square feet and we have a paper from the chief that says that it takes eight PYs to patrol that area properly if you are doing it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. On the other hand, he has very craftily told us that if we want to install some electronic equipment we can save six of those eight PYs. It will cost us $120,000 up front but there is a terrific payback in less than a year. The Treasury Board norm is three years. Staff, I think, would have gone ahead with this except that it is over $100,000 and needs to come to this committee. Are there any comments?
Senator Forrestall: I still like people.
The Chairman: We all like people.
Senator Rompkey: How does it compare to other buildings?
The Chairman: We are talking about the same standard of electronic security that is in the Victoria Building or in this building. Would anything be different, chief?
Mr. Serge D. Gourgue, Director of Security: No, Mr. Chairman, everything would be the same.
The Chairman: And the PYs are for the freight entrance?
Mr. Gorgue: Basically for the freight entrance, that is right.
Senator Poulin: Go for it.
The Chairman: I heard someone say, "Go for it." Does everyone agree with that as the message?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Next is "Other Matters." We just talked about the fixed schedule. We have had feedback on the fixed schedule document from a variety of senators. What I have asked the staff to do, if they would be kind enough, is to insert those proposed changes into a revised document and to highlight them. So what you will see in the revised document is parts that appear to be marked over with a magic marker, which will expedite finding the changes that have been suggested so far by various senators.
Again, I want to emphasize that the next step for this paper is caucuses and the Rules Committee, and if the caucuses and the Rules Committee come forward with something that they like, it will eventually come back here because they will probably want money for it. That is the process, but I thought that this committee should see what sort of feedback we have received to date from the first round of senators.
Basically, the highlights are to extend the fixed schedule one week longer than the House of Commons, adding a couple more people to each of the committees, increasing the number from seven to nine.
The Banking Committee had sent us a letter and we incorporated their earlier comments into it. There was a request for a Standing Committee on Science and Technology. Some people wanted some more words in relation to national defence and security, taxation moved to National Finance, customs and excise moved to Foreign Affairs, and that Agriculture and Energy not be part of the same group. These are all details that the Rules Committee has to examine and deal with, but this document does reflect the comments of 14 or 15 of your colleagues to date.
At the last meeting, we undertook, at Senator Poulin's urging, to develop a proposal for senators speaking and meeting with tourists as they were coming through the building. I regret that we have not made any progress to date on that matter, and I would ask that that matter stand perhaps until the new committee is structured. Senator Poulin also asked for discussion on what we were going to do vis-à-vis the millennium and, again, there has not been a opportunity to bring forward a paper on that, and perhaps that can also be put forward to the new committee.
Senator Forrestall: That is very important.
The Chairman: Everyone felt it was very important. I think what happened was that in August we had cut a deal with the senior staff that we would all take holidays at the same time, and "the same time" was the last two weeks in August. The bottom line is that there were not people around to do it.
Senators may recall the small red frames that used to be around the pictures in the main hall. They were getting pretty ratty looking. Leo and his crew have fixed them up. The archivist has also provided a brief description of them and is also preparing a brief description of the Speakers to go underneath their portraits as well. Leo, as usual, does superb work.
Senator Poulin: That is really nice.
The Chairman: The other thing is we have been promised that there will be no more coat racks put in front of the leaders' pictures so people will finally see them.
Senator Cohen: You see the top of the picture with our emblem in a white dot?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Cohen: That would be very effective here.
The Chairman: Do others like that as well?
Senator Carstairs: Yes.
The Chairman: I see two nods here, three, four.
No nods down there. Some like it, some do not. Take a chance.
Senator Forrestall: With respect to that crest, that is not the crest of the Senate of Canada, is it?
Senator Cohen: No.
The Chairman: No. It is the Coat of Arms of Canada.
That was just as a point of information. If you visit the senators' work room, you will see there are pictures of the staff. All of the directors' pictures are up in the work room together with their job description and the organization chart showing who reports to them. It seemed like a good idea to give senators an opportunity to be familiar with who is doing what within the institution. The next time you are in the work room, you will see them.
I believe we have come to the end of our public meeting. We will have a brief pause and then go in camera.
The committee continued in camera.
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 23, 1997
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:10 a.m. to consider its agenda.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, as this may be our last meeting, I should like to start by thanking members of the committee for your work. The committee has worked collectively as a team. To my recollection, we have managed to get through everything without resorting to a recorded vote. There has been a strong non-partisan spirit in the room. I have had the distinct impression that all senators in this room were working for the benefit of their colleagues. I think that a reasonable amount has been accomplished by this committee for the benefit of the Senate, for the benefit of our colleagues and, ultimately, for the benefit of the country.
It was my pleasure to serve you as chairman. I believe that you have been of real service to your colleagues. I thank you very much.
Senator Wood: I should like to respond to that. I have been on this committee almost since 1979, during which time there have been a number of different chairmen. This committee has achieved more in the short time that you have been chairman than during the time of all the others. I am grateful that you are here and I hope there will be no change in the next session.
The Chairman: You never know, but thank you anyway.
Senator Wood: Well there are some of us who will certainly go to bat for you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The committee continued in camera.
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 30, 1997
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:10 a.m. to consider its agenda.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, order, please.
Let the record show that Senators Cohen, Carstairs, LeBreton, Cochrane, Poulin, Milne and Nolin are present.
There are a couple of matters I wish to address before the committee continues in camera. First, I wish to discuss an article which appeared in The Ottawa Citizen of September 25, entitled, "Senators Re-examine Attendance Loopholes." It is an article in which my views are set out. The copy I am looking at is from the "Quorum."
It is implied in the article that this committee will address the rules for attendance in the Senate. The right place to do that is in the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders. I do not think I once said that the Internal Economy Committee would undertake such a study. However, I do not have a tape of the interview. The journalist who wrote the article surmised that because I happened to be Chairman of Internal Economy at that time that this committee would do such a study.
Senator LeBreton: Let the record show that the comments were attributed to you, Mr. Chairman, but that they reflect the views of many, myself included. We realize that this is not a matter for Internal Economy. However, that does not take away from the fact that we support those views.
The Chairman: I just wanted to say to you that I was speaking in my own capacity. I think those things should be adjusted. When the Rules Committee is constituted, I will write a letter to the committee, giving them my point of view on the matter.
Once again, I want to thank the members of this committee for their hard work. This is probably the last meeting of this committee as presently constituted. We will have a report from the steering committee sometime this week or early next week. As such, and barring some unusual emergency, I do not think there will be a need to call another meeting of this committee.
It would be remiss of me not to say how much fun it has been to work with all of you and how much I have enjoyed it. It is also important for us to note the folks who tend to sit around the wall. Some, like Mr. Bélisle, actually sit at the table. However, they put in hours and hours and hours of work to get the documents out and to make things happen. I am terribly proud of the quality of your staff. I hope that you will go back to your caucuses and tell them that you have an outstanding staff working for the Senate. They are ably led by Paul Bélisle, who is a marvellous moderating force who juggles the most incredible conflicts you can imagine. He has 104 bosses, all of whom try to tell him to do things differently. He tends to please them all, and I do not know how he does it. He reminds me of that guy who used to appear on the Ed Sullivan Show with the plates on the sticks. He would keep moving down the row, keeping them all spinning. He does a remarkable job, and he has a terrific team.
The terrific team goes right down to the secretaries who, when the geniuses figure out how the documentation should look, start typing at 8:00 a.m. to get it done and translated on time so that we can all see it. We have made some efforts to acknowledge their work during the course of the year in the form of plaques or other items of recognition which they can put on their desks. I have not spent as much time as I would like to have telling them how much we appreciate their work. I know I am speaking for everyone here when I thank them. I am thanking them on behalf of this committee and on behalf of the Senate as a whole for their efforts.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The committee continued in camera.
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 21, 1997
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:30 a.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, it is 9:30.
Senator Wood: I would like to address something to senators. In light of the fact that we have not been able to discuss this agenda with our caucuses, I move that we disperse for 48 hours to go back to our caucuses and discuss this agenda and return here on Thursday.
Mr. Bélisle: Honourable senators --
Senator Stollery: Honourable senators, in view of the controversial nature of this meeting, I should like to say something. It seems to me that our tradition for many years has been to consult our caucus on these kinds of matters before we proceed any further, so I must admit I agree with Senator Wood. I think it is irregular to proceed before we have had a meeting of caucus.
Mr. Bélisle: Honourable senators, the Clerk has no authority whatsoever to entertain points of order or questions of privilege. The only motion I can entertain --
Senator Stollery: Honourable senators, I believe that is why Senator Wood addressed her motion to the senators and not to the Clerk. The Clerk has no role in this at all. It is really something to be decided by the senators present. There is a motion before the senators.
Mr. Bélisle: I have the authority to recognize, and Senator Carstairs, I believe you wished to say something.
Senator Carstairs: I understand that the only motion that is before us today is the election of the officers of this committee and, in light of that, I move that Senator Rompkey be made chairman of the Internal Economy Committee.
Mr. Bélisle: There is a motion before the committee. Are there any other nominations for chairman of the committee?
Senator De Bané: Honourable senators, I understand that the rule is that when the Clerk puts before us a motion concerning the election of the chairman, of course, that issue has to be discussed and voted upon. Our colleague Senator Wood, before the motion put forward by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, suggested to the members of the committee that, as representatives of both parties, we consult with our caucuses and disperse and meet again in two days.
I think that before entertaining the motion, as the other one was put first, we should, perhaps, discuss the suggestion of Senator Wood, supported by Senator Stollery. Of course, as long as we have not elected a chairman, there are precedents that say that the committee is not yet formed. As the committee is not yet formed, then, of course, we can entertain the suggestion put to the senators, and not to the Clerk, by Senator Wood.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I would like to say a few words, speaking personally, not on behalf of my party. For the past three years while I have been a member of this committee, it has always operated by consensus. Heaven knows that we have accomplished a great many things in the past two or three years. This morning, the Liberal Party appears to be somewhat out of sync. I have no intention of voting either for or against this motion or of taking part in this debate which you need to hold amongst yourselves. This is a debate that should be held in caucus. Come back to the committee with a decision and we will be happy to support it. However, do not ask the Conservatives to decide for you.
[English]
Senator Carstairs: With the greatest respect, honourable senators, the Committee of Selection put forward the names of certain individuals to serve on this committee, and that list was duly voted on by the entire Senate. As far as I can see, almost every one of those duly chosen people is in this room. It is up to those people in this room to choose from among themselves who will be the chairman of the committee. I have put forward the name of Senator Rompkey. If there are other names to be put forward, I suggest that we proceed to put those names forward.
However, we have one name of the group of 17 who were duly elected by the chamber to be members of this committee. I therefore suggest we go forward with the election.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud (Saint-Louis de Kent): I would like to second Senator Carstairs' motion. The reason why we are here this morning is to elect a committee chairman. As Senator Carstairs said, the vast majority of the committee members are present. I am prepared to proceed on this item and I second Senator Carstairs' motion.
[English]
Senator Stollery: Because we do not have a chairman, I am addressing myself to my colleagues. I am a member of the committee, and I have been for many years, but I am also a member of my caucus and I think all senators recognize the supremacy of caucus. What is the problem with, for example, postponing the decision, as Senator Wood has suggested, for 48 hours? All that will happen is that the item will be put before our caucus. It seems to me that is a very reasonable position, and it is the way in which we have always proceeded. I do not see any reason to change the way in which we have always proceeded. We discuss these matters in our caucus. I think that is how we should proceed.
Senator Di Nino: Obviously, this is a problem within the Liberal caucus. It is not a problem within the Conservative caucus. We are here to respect the wishes of the leadership of the Liberal caucus. Traditionally, the position taken by the leadership of both sides is that the chairman and the deputy chairman would be, in effect, decreed, although that may be the wrong word.
Speaking for myself, and not on behalf of my colleagues, it seems there is a problem here that we have been dragged into which is not one that should hold up the functioning of this committee, which is critically important to the operation of the Senate. I think Senator Carstairs is absolutely right.
A decision was made by the whole Senate that a certain number of people be chosen to sit on this committees. It was approved, and it is our duty to conduct the business and the affairs of this committee.
Traditionally, the first item on the agenda is the election of the chairman. I do not know what my colleagues feel about this issue, but if the leadership of the Liberal caucus has decided that a certain individual should be the chairman of this committee, I, for one, am prepared to respect that.
Senator De Bané: Senator Di Nino, I would like to tell you what I have concluded after looking at other precedents.
The moment the clerk of the committee says, "I will entertain candidates for the steering committee," no other motion can be put forward. Senator Wood, in addressing herself not to the clerk but to the senators, said, "Honourable senators, I think we should disperse, consult our caucus, and come back in two days' time." She said that before the clerk or before Senator Carstairs called for the election of the steering committee. If she had made her proposal to her colleagues after the motion, then obviously it would be out of order.
Until a chairman is elected, of course, the committee is not properly constituted. I refer you to Beauchesne, citation 788, page 227.
We should not address ourselves to the clerk. If we address ourselves to the clerk before the election of the chairman, he will tell us what was said on June 18, 1986, in the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The clerk of that committee said, "Senators, I am in your hands." It is for us to decide if we should entertain Senator Wood's motion, a motion that was put before the motion to elect a chairman. As long as we have not elected a chairman, the committee is not yet properly constituted.
This is why I think Senator Wood was right in addressing herself not to the clerk but to the senators when she asked if we could disperse for 48 hours so that we, the Liberals, may talk to our leaders, Senator Carstairs and Senator Graham. We are a united team, and we would like to discuss this matter before coming back in 48 hours.
That proposal was put forward before the motion this morning. If Senator Wood had spoken after the motion, then of course it would have been out of order.
Senator Di Nino: I think this is something the members of your caucus here should deal with.
Senator Stollery: That is what we are saying.
Senator Di Nino: I think it is unfair to drag us into this debate, which is your debate. I think you can deal with it yourselves here this morning.
Senator Wood: I have nothing against the nomination that you have made, Senator Carstairs. However, I feel that we should have some discussion in our caucus on the subject. It is only fair to Senator Kenny. I do not think he was dealt with fairly. That is my personal opinion, and I stand on it.
Once again, I have nothing against Senator Rompkey, but I would like to discuss this in caucus. I was told the other day, "Come to caucus." Well, I will come to caucus.
Senator Carstairs: I have not had any contact with Senator Kenny, although I have placed a couple of phone calls over the last day and a half. There has been no rescinding of his desire not to sit on any committees.
With respect to the issue of Beauchesne, however, I would refer you to citation 785, which is extremely clear. It appears on page 226.
The clerk has the power to do one thing only, and that is to call a meeting of this committee as soon as he can possibly call it after the report of the Committee of Selection has been approved in the Senate. When he comes to this meeting, he has only one function, which is to call for the election of the chairman. He cannot entertain any points of order, any questions of privilege, or any motions to adjourn. Therefore, I suggest that we get on this morning with the election of the chairman of this committee.
Senator Stollery: Honourable senators, that is exactly the purpose of Senator Wood's motion. She addressed it to the senators and not to the clerk.
Does the issue not boil down to a simple one? What is wrong with consulting our caucus? Are we saying in public that we do not want to consult with our caucus, which is, after all, meeting today around noon? Is that not what it boils down to? We are saying that we are not prepared to consult with our colleagues on the matter. That is what we are saying.
My position is that, under the circumstances, we should consult with our colleagues. They meet in a couple of hours. The opposite position is, no, we do not want to consult with them. Therefore, the implication is that we do not have the approval of our colleagues. The situation is as simple as that, which is why I support Senator Wood's motion.
Senator Corbin: Honourable senators, like any other senator at any meeting of the Senate, formal or informal, I have an absolute right to address my colleagues.
I wish to ask a fundamental question. I should like to be reassured in this sense personally because, obviously, there is a controversy going on around the table. I address my question to the clerk.
Has this meeting been properly called? What is the fashion of calling meetings of this nature, organizational meetings?
Mr. Bélisle: All meetings are called after the usual consultation. The leadership will consult and will call the clerk of the committee. Being the clerk of this committee, I was asked to call the meeting today.
Senator Corbin: Who asked you to call the meeting?
Mr. Bélisle: It was the leadership, but it is always done like that.
Senator Corbin: Who? Do you have the name of a person?
Mr. Bélisle: I do not like to divulge my private conversations with senators.
Senator Corbin: I will leave it at that.
Senator Taylor: This is my first meeting. I have only been in the Senate one year. When I found out that I had been named to the committee, I made a point of calling around because I knew a chairman was to be selected today. I do not get the impression that our caucus was silent on the issue. There was quite a bit of discussion. What I am getting at is if anyone can jump in at any time to make a motion that this committee be referred back to caucus, then we will be handcuffed. The Senate as a whole appointed this committee. If we cannot even pick our own chairman, we set a precedent. The precedent we set for every other issue is that we can delay while we go back and talk to caucus. The caucus is supposed to be informed when we come here. It is our own fault if we do not know what the caucus thinks.
On the other hand, we do not have to reflect the caucus. We are appointed as individuals. I did not make any vow that I would always do what the caucus wants when I come to this committee.
What I want to do is get on with things. I do not see the logic of referring issues back to caucus.
Senator Callbeck: Honourable senators, I certainly agree. I am new here as well, but I cannot see any point in going back to the caucus. We have the membership here before us, the names of the people who are to be on the committee. We are the people who should be voting on the election of a chairman. I am prepared to go ahead and vote right now.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud (Saint-Louis de Kent): If we were to postpone this meeting, we would merely be setting a precedent and every gesture of this committee would then be subject to prior caucus meetings. This decision would undermine the committee's independence. That is another reason why I would like us to move on item one on our agenda.
[English]
Senator Wood: Senators, I do not think this is something that happens every time we sit here. I have sat on this committee for 12 years, and this is a first. However, this issue is also a first. We have never had this kind of controversy. I feel that we are unjust in not listening to Senator Kenny and I will stand by that all the way. That is the only issue here. It has nothing to do with the new chairman. I just want to allow him to have his last say and I will be happy with whatever happens.
As I have said, I have sat with many chairmen here and I have had no problems with them. I have a problem with the issue today, and that is all. I have mentioned it before, so it is not new. It is not an issue that will come back again. It is not an issue that has ever been brought up before.
Mr. Bélisle: Are there any other comments? The clerk cannot be accused of having cut off debate. Are there any other comments or questions?
Again, the clerk of the committee cannot entertain any other motions. There is a question before us. Is the committee ready for the question?
Senator Carstairs: Question.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Clerk, with all due respect, Senator Wood did not address herself to the clerk.
Mr. Bélisle: That is correct.
Senator De Bané: She addressed herself to her colleagues. She suggested to her colleagues that we disperse for 48 hours. She made that suggestion before the first item on the agenda was called. Had she done it after, it would, of course, be totally out of order. She made the suggestion before. I think we owe it to Senator Wood to answer her suggestion.
Senator Carstairs: With the greatest of respect, the clerk cannot do that.
Mr. Bélisle: That is correct.
Senator De Bané: She addressed herself to the senators, not to the clerk. Of course, if she had addressed the suggestion to the clerk it would have been totally out of order. She addressed herself to her colleagues.
Senator Taylor: It is anarchy if we can ignore the chairman and make motions to each other before meetings start.
Senator De Bané: As long as the chairman is not elected, the committee is not properly constituted.
Senator Maheu: Can we have the question?
Mr. Bélisle: Honourable senators, are you ready for the question?
Senator Carstairs: What question?
Mr. Bélisle: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Carstairs that the Honourable Senator Rompkey be chairman of the committee.
Senator Carstairs: Question.
Senator De Bané: What are we going to do with Senator Wood's suggestion to her colleagues?
Senator Carstairs: With the greatest of respect, Senator De Bané, as soon as the clerk of this committee took the chair, he could do only one thing, and that is what he has put before us at the present time.
Senator Stollery: It is a very strange procedure. It is a controversy and everyone knows it, but we do not want to talk to the caucus about it and there is nothing much we can do about it if we take that position.
Senator Taylor: We can talk to the caucus at any time. We can remove the chairman a month from now, if we want changes. It is not a case of muzzling the caucus. The caucus is all powerful to do what it wants at any time. Chairmen can be changed. We are not frustrating caucus. As Senator Di Nino said, it is a Liberal fight.
Senator Stollery: There is a controversy and it will, of course, break out in other forms. That is the problem with these kinds of controversies. They are best resolved at the beginning so they do not infect the body politic.
Mr. Bélisle: Honourable senators, you have heard the question. Are there any other comments?
Senator De Bané: I propose Senator Kenny for chairman of this committee.
Mr. Bélisle: According to the list that I received this morning, Senator De Bané, Senator Kenny is not a member of this committee and I cannot receive that motion.
You have heard the question, honourable senators. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Carstairs that the Honourable Senator Rompkey be chairman of the committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Bélisle: I declare the motion carried. In accordance with rule 88, the Honourable Senator Rompkey is elected chairman of the committee. I invite the Honourable Senator Rompkey to take the chair.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, Senator Di Nino offered his condolences. Under normal circumstances I would be tempted to say thank you, and I think I will.
I will say a few words later, but my duty now is to preside over the election of a deputy chairman.
Senator DeWare: Honourable senators, I move that Senator Pierre Claude Nolin be deputy chairman.
The Chairman: Are there any other further nominations?
There being none, I declare Senator Nolin duly elected as deputy chairman.
My next duty is to deal with the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. I require a motion that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chairman, the Deputy chairman and one other Member of the committee, or another member designated by the chairman after the usual consultations.
Senator Maheu: I nominate Senator Marie-P. Poulin as a member of the subcommittee.
The Chairman: Are there any other nominations?
Senator Carstairs: I have a question. Are we electing only one member now? I understood there were to be five.
Mr. Bélisle: It is up to the committee to decide that, senator.
Senator Di Nino: I think five is a better number to work with. If one member is absent, it is very tough to take decisions. The chairman and the deputy chairman have the authority to act on their own in certain instances, but you want to have meetings with both sides represented. If one happens to be unavailable for whatever reason, it is tough to proceed. I recommend that five be the number.
The Chairman: That is good point and, of course, I am open to that. However, I draw your attention to the wording of the motion, which states:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chairman, the Deputy Chairman and one other member of the committee or a member of the committee designated by the Chairman after the usual consultations --
That provides for absence, illness or whatever. We can recruit others. It is not limited. It is an open door.
Senator Di Nino: When you have a quorum of two it is tough. The chairman can designate someone, usually from his or her own side. I do not think the chairman can designate someone from the other side.
The Chairman: I am in your hands, honourable senators, on that matter.
Senator Carstairs: Perhaps we should proceed with the nomination of Senator Poulin.
Mr. Bélisle: For clarification on the motion itself, it is in the absence of Senator Poulin that it will be another member.
The Chairman: That is understood.
Senator Di Nino: If Senator Nolin is not available, the two Liberal members could still conduct a meeting and, in effect, deal with the issues, but traditionally that is not done.
The Chairman: I can assure you that will not happen.
Senator Nolin: Keep in mind that those decisions are ratified by the entire committee. It is not a game.
The Chairman: As I am reminded, there is a motion on the floor. Let us deal with that motion first.
Are there further nominations?
There being none, I declare Senator Poulin appointed to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
I am in your hands as to whether you want to enhance that committee.
Senator Nolin: I recommend that we adopt the motion as it is now. We need flexibility. At the end of the day we need to produce decisions to be ratified by this committee in case of urgency. I think that is why the proposal is worded the way it is. I recommend that we adopt the motion the way it stands.
Senator Di Nino: It is adopted.
The Chairman: The other item before us is that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to meet in camera. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I need a motion to print the committee's proceedings. I understand that in the past 375 copies have been printed for distribution.
Senator Taylor: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Before I ask for an adjournment motion, senators, if there are members who have not previously been on the committee who would like a briefing to get up to speed on this committee, that can be arranged. It might, perhaps, even be useful for members who have been on the committee before. I am sure the clerk can arrange that if you contact him directly.
Senator Nolin: I have a question which I should like to discuss in camera .
Mr. Bélisle: There is a motion to proceed in camera.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chairman: I wish to say that I appreciated the efforts and hard work of the former chairman, Senator Kenny. I sat on this committee under his chairmanship and was impressed with the way in which he conducted himself. I was impressed by the amount of energy he put into his work and by his dedication to the task.
During the time that I have been here there certainly have been improvements. I refer to our fiscal environment as well as to the way we conduct ourselves as senators and the way we operate our offices.
I say that as the chairman of this committee. I wish to offer a vote of thanks to the former chairman for the way in which he conducted himself on our behalf and the way he pursued his duties.
Senator Di Nino: I think that is very commendable. I would like to second that but I suggest that we find a time when Senator Kenny can attend here and we can do it with him present. Perhaps we can find some appropriate way to recognize him in some material way. Perhaps we could give him a little gift. I, too, feel that he did an extraordinary job. Probably no one else could have done the things that he did during his tenure as chairman. Notwithstanding that he and I did not always agree, one must respect the effort and commitment that he made on behalf of all senators.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Chairman, I like the idea of having a special session to thank Senator Kenny.
Senator LeBreton: To follow up on Senator Di Nino's suggestion, perhaps after the submissions are made to the Blais commission and Senator Kenny is invited to this committee to report on it with Senator Nolin, that might be an appropriate time for the committee as a whole to express its thanks.
The Chairman: It shall be done.
The committee adjourned.