Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing
Rules and Orders
Issue 12 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 16, 1999
The Standing Commitee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 12:32 p.m. to consider the question of privilege raised by Senator Murray.
Senator Shirley Maheu (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I suggest we hear from Senator Murray first, and then we will take it from there.
Senator Murray: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Most committee members were in the chamber when I raised my question of privilege or, at any rate, they have had an opportunity to look at it in the Debates of the Senate. It is straightforward. It speaks for itself.
I could have raised a point of order because the five-minute bell was determined without getting leave. I did not raise that because that is not my point. Even if leave is granted, a five-minute bell is too short.
To me, the remedy is simply to draft some addition or amendment to rule 66(1) to provide that while with leave there can be a bell for less than 60 minutes, there should be some minimum time for the bell. I have not provided a draft today, unfortunately.
Senator Stewart, with whom I discussed this matter yesterday, told me that there is such a rule in the House of Commons and that it provides for a 15-minute minimum of bell ringing.
Honourable senators, I had an office in the Victoria Building from 1979 to 1986 and then from 1993 to the present. I am, if not fleet of foot, at least able to get up and move when the bell rings. Fifteen minutes may be a bit short. You should perhaps consider a 20-minute minimum. We may have to wait for a bus. Sometimes traffic is heavy and so forth. I am not sure that 15 minutes is sufficient.
For some people, it would hardly be sufficient for them to get an elevator, to come downstairs and walk across the street. One of our colleagues walked across last week and, of course, did not make it in the five minutes. One or two others said they simply were not in shape to try that. I am thinking about 20 minutes.
As a postscript, obviously I am not talking about situations where there has been a house order the day before or even earlier that day that a vote will occur at a certain time or about situations where there are additional votes on related questions. Under those circumstances, the Senate having been convened and the bells having rung and a house order having been previously approved, I see no reason why we should not go directly from one vote to the next.
In situations such as we had last week, we should have a 20-minute bell. The remedy I seek is an amendment to the rules.
Senator Carstairs: First, let me tell Senator Murray that I am in agreement. We should not have gone with the five-minute bell the other day, particularly in light of the fact that we clearly had an objection from Senator Corbin. The Speaker did not ask for leave. Had he requested leave, clearly it would not have been given.
I also have no difficulty with a 20-minute bell. Having also had an office in the Victoria Building, I think a 20-minute bell is probably a more reasonable requirement.
The only addition I would make to Senator Murray's comment is that the rule must be written in such a way that it would be not only the House order but any subsequent action from that House order. To give an example, the bell for Bill C-71 was for the report stage but then we moved immediately into the third reading vote. The actual House order was only for the report stage. I do not think we then want a minimum 20-minute bell between the report stage and the third reading stage if everyone has agreed. Clearly, if there are to be speeches between those two stages, that would necessitate a further bell.
We should draft the rule in such a way that it references a House order or anything emanating directly from that house order without any interruption of speeches; then there would be no need for a bell. The standard practice should be a 20-minute bell.
However, I do want to warn all of you that no matter how carefully we draft this rule, if there is unanimous agreement from the Senate at any time, there can be no bell.
Senator Kelly: Perhaps I was a little premature. This thing is easy to understand and it seems to me that everyone understands what has been said. I would move that a combination of what has been discussed now be embodied in a revised rule. Otherwise, we can talk the whole thing to death. That is all.
Senator Murray: Senator Carstairs raised an important point. No matter what we put in, there is a rule somewhere -- and the clerk can perhaps draw our attention to it -- that says we can do whatever we like with leave. I think we must be careful about that for the reasons I explained the other day. Leave is given by those who are in the chamber at a particular time. I do not think any of us want a situation where, even with leave, it would be possible for us to impinge on the rights and privileges of colleagues. To get around Senator Carstairs' point, we will have to say something like "notwithstanding anything else in these rules."
The Chairman: Rule 66(3) had that intent but somehow you get around it.
Senator Beaudoin: I am inclined to agree with what Senator Murray has said. When we say in the house "with leave," it is because it is possible to waive the application.
There is such a thing as the right to vote, and those who are outside the chamber at that time have the right to vote. In my opinion, it is not good enough to say "with leave" in a situation like that unless everyone is in the Senate. I agree that it must be drafted in such a way that when the right to vote is in issue, it cannot be done by leave.
The Chairman: There are other times when it is necessary, perhaps, not to grant leave.
Senator Kelly: Unless I misunderstood what Senators Beaudoin and Murray said, I disagree on the matter of people who are not in chamber. There have been many times when I was not in my chair. If you are not there, you do not vote.
As far as I am concerned, I do not think we should ever give up our freedom within that chamber to adjust in any direction we please. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote, but in order to do so they must be in certain places and do certain things. That does not take away from the fact that they have the basic right to vote.
In our case, we must take the position that all of us have the right to vote; however, if we want to vote, we must be present in order to do it.
Senator Murray: Why ring the bell at all?
Senator Kelly: It gives people a chance to get there.
Senator Murray: Do you think with leave we should be able to dispense with the bell?
Senator Kelly: Yes.
The Chairman: I would bring to your attention once again the wording of rule 3:
Notwithstanding anything in these rules, any rule or part thereof may be suspended without notice by leave of the Senate, the rule or part thereof proposed to be suspended, and the reason for the proposed suspension, being distinctly stated.
As things stand now, once the Senate has given leave and has said why, we can change any rule.
Senator Beaudoin: The bell rings because we want our colleagues to be informed. If you can destroy that by leave of the house, you amend the basic principle of our rules for those who are absent, unless you say that we should be close to the Senate all the time, not more than 19 minutes away. I do not think that is the intention. If a bell is ringing, it is because we want people to get in to vote.
The Chairman: It may not be the intention, Senator Beaudoin, but this rule is very clear.
Senator Murray: With leave, you can dispense with the bell.
Senator Rossiter: Further to what Senator Murray said, it seems to me that there is a responsibility on everyone in the house, if the situation were to arise and unanimous consent were requested, to say "no."
Senator DeWare: In the house that day, Senator Corbin was adamant that we were wrong, and I think we owe the senators who were out of the house an apology. We acted in haste.
I think the "with leave" part must be there for another reason. After we have voted on a motion in amendment and then decide to go to the motion, someone could ask for a standing vote on it again. We are all there. The doors have been closed, and every member is in their seat. We can agree that we need not ring the bell, with leave, because no one has left the chamber. The maximum number is present; therefore, we do not need to ring the bell.
There is a time when we have to ring the bells, and there is a time when we decide they are not necessary. We have all been through that over the years.
I think we need a minimum time for a bell, and I would think it should probably be 20 minutes. Do we need to have someone do a proposal for us, or do we just recommend that to the group that will sit down and give us a new rule book for the fall?
The Chairman: Several people have mentioned the question of privilege. Is it really a question of privilege? We asked Jamie Robertson to look at it. Mr. Robertson, would you like to tell us what you found in your research?
Mr. Jamie Robertson, Committee Researcher: Voting is obviously one of the fundamental duties and functions of parliamentarians. On its face, any interference with a parliamentarian's right to cast his or her vote in the chamber would be a breach of privilege. Similarly, any interference with a parliamentarian on his or her way to the chamber in order to vote is a breach of parliamentary privilege. There was an incident in the House in February when a demonstration by public service employees outside the Wellington Building prevented certain members from accessing their offices. Certainly, had that occurred in such a way that members of the House or Senate were prevented from getting to the chamber in order to vote, it would be a clear breach of privilege.
The difficulty in this case is that it is the Senate that permitted or allowed the bells to be rung for five minutes. That raises the question of whether the Senate can be in breach of the privileges of its members. If so, who is responsible or liable and who is to be sanctioned?
The corporate privileges of the Senate include the right to regulate its own internal affairs. That includes the right to enact rules and adopt policies or practices with respect to its own constitution and organization.
The first question before the committee is whether the prima facie case that was found by the Speaker and voted upon by the chamber and referred to this committee has in fact been established -- whether there was a breach of parliamentary privilege and, if so, what sanctions flow from that.
The other issue that has been discussed is the question of the rules. Clearly there are some ambiguities, if not questions, about rule 66 and how it can be amended. That could be addressed as part of the question of privilege, if a breach of privilege is found, or the committee could decide that while no question of privilege has been established, there is an important issue here that must be addressed and that would include amendments to the rules in order to ensure that this situation does not arise again.
Certainly, in the House of Commons, as Senator Murray says and to my understanding of the House rules, if a vote is unexpected, that is, if it has not been ordered by the House of Commons or is not set out by a rule of the House, then ordinarily it is a 30-minute bell. If the vote is predictable and people can plan to be in the chamber for it, then it is a 15-minute bell. That is the distinction. The Senate rules are different. Essentially, rule 66(1) provides for the 60-minute bell, which is really for the situation that arises without planning or expectation, whereas rule 66(3) deals with a planned or anticipated vote.
Senator Beaudoin: That is the basic distinction. It was an unexpected vote. It is different from a vote that is expected. If a vote is unexpected, I think that we have the privilege to vote. If you cannot vote, that is a breach of privilege in that sense.
The Chairman: The rule also states "unless otherwise ordered and with leave of the Senate."
Senator Grafstein: We have tended to rely on whips. Let us lay aside the question of independence for a moment. This problem arises as a result of a member of one of the two parties. Was this an internal whip problem as opposed to a problem that related to anything else? On our side, our whips are pretty assiduous. If something happens, I find out about it in five or 10 minutes -- that is, provided I have told my secretary where I am.
It is not with a view to change the rules but, rather, to see whether or not, from a mechanical standpoint, this was just a deficit of practice for a moment. Perhaps this was a human error as opposed to a rules error. I am back to being a conservative about not changing the rules unless there is an egregious error that requires a rule change.
Senator Carstairs: Let us be clear about what we were voting on the other day. We were voting on an adjournment motion. Senator Lawson wanted to speak on the matter but he did not want to speak at that time. Senator Prud'homme then decided that he would not let him speak, because he would not give him the time to think about his speech. He wanted Senator Lawson to speak there and then.
To be fair to the whips -- and it is rare that we have a vote on an adjournment motion -- they thought that this matter could be dealt with quickly. That is why they agreed to a five-minute bell. In hindsight, which is always 20-20, both whips feel that it would have been better, perhaps, to have gone with a 15-minute bell.
What we have before us now is a matter of privilege that has been raised by Senator Murray. Although I agree with everything he said, I think he had a point of order rather than a question of privilege. That is what we must decide here first: whether he had a question of privilege. However, that still leaves us with the rules as they exist. The rules as they exist allow us to do anything with leave, including having no bell, a five-minute bell, a 15-minute bell, a 40-minute bell and so on. The rules are wide open.
The question has been raised -- and I think it is important -- that 15 minutes for people who are in the Victoria Building may not be adequate. If they know there will be a vote at five o'clock, even if the bells start to ring at 4:45 p.m. they will leave 20 minutes to travel to the chamber because they know that it will take 20 minutes to get there. I know because I did it. However, in the case of an unexpected vote -- and that is the important phrase here -- with no warning, they still need 20 minutes to get over here just because of the limitations of the traffic. Those who have not had offices in the Victoria Building are not quite as sympathetic as those of us who have had offices in that building.
Senator DeWare: The bus driver tells us that it takes between eight and 12 minutes, depending on the traffic, to get from the Victoria Building to the Centre Block. On that particular day, it was 3:25 p.m. when that vote was called. I think some of us did not expect a committee to be sitting because it was a Wednesday and committees usually sit at 3:30 p.m. No leave was given and it was not recognized before. I am not excusing us, but right after it was called we knew we were wrong. However, it was too late to go up to the Speaker and tell him, "We will let the bell ring for 15 minutes."
We will apologize for the mistake. We also did not realize that there were any committees in session at the time. However, that does not excuse us. We cannot even get from the East Block to the chamber in five minutes, let alone from the Victoria Building.
Senator Beaudoin: With the unanimous consent of the persons present, can you suspend anything contained in either the by-laws or the constitution of the Senate? If you say "yes" to that, I will be astonished. That is my question.
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: Some rules are written into the constitution, for example, rules about quorum and whether or not the Speaker has a vote.
Senator Beaudoin: In my opinion, the right to say "with leave of the Senate" is not absolute, because the constitution is paramount. The distinction that has been made between an unexpected vote and a vote that is known is fundamental.
Since I do not have the answer, I direct the question to you, Mr. O'Brien. With unanimous consent of the Senate, you may have 16 senators in the Senate and they may suspend any rule.
Senator Grafstein: I am back to my first point. I am hearing that, in dealing with this matter, the whips should have taken a more careful look and asked for a 15-minute or a seven-minute or a 12-minute walk because once they are satisfied that everyone is accounted for, they can move more quickly to 15 minutes.
I want to speak on the other side of the coin. I think there is a differentiation between some procedural votes and some substantive votes. We must give some credence to that. As a purist, one could argue that there is no difference in a senator losing a vote on a procedural issue as opposed to a vote on a bill or an amendment to a bill.
I want to draw to your attention the fact that we spend so little time in the chamber that if we end up with a series of procedural issues, which can happen from time to time, they can cause problems. We have seen it before. We never believed that it would happen but I have been around long enough to remember when procedural issues and not issues of substance were the menu of the day. On the other hand, you can take up a lot of time. If there is a series of votes and you make the mandate that it is a 15-minute vote, without discretion, we could end up spending the better part of the day on one issue because one or two senators may wish to deal with procedural issues that are effectively not substantive issues. If we were meeting many days throughout the year, this would not be a problem. However, keeping in mind the number of days that we meet in the chamber, not to mention those who are ambitiously trying to abuse our privileges in terms of time and in other respects, we must balance some of the mechanical problems against the substantive ones.
If we end up with 15-minute bells for a whole series of procedural motions of adjournments and challenges, we could take up the better part of a day. Obviously, it is a different question for the independent senators. However, I would rather leave it to the discretion of the whips to say, "It will be a seven-minute bell" or whatever, in order to ensure that we have more time in the Senate for substantive issues as opposed to procedural matters.
I still hear this issue not as a substantive matter as much as a mechanical question.
Senator Cools: There are many issues here and we seem to be complicating terribly something that is quite simple. First, anyone who believes that we can waive anything by leave of the Senate is totally wrong. For example, no one can stand on the floor of the Senate and say, "With leave of the Senate, let us not bother with three readings today, let us just have one and consider the bill passed." There are many important areas of how we proceed that are not touched at all in the Senate rules -- that is, unless one could say "Just those rules that are actually recorded in the red book can be waived." Large numbers of our daily practices are not addressed by the rules.
I think we are rushing into a rule change where there is no need to do so. With all due respect, there was a slight oversight on the part of the leadership, which resulted in a slight of certain members. I have sat there for countless days and heard the leadership and the whips back and forth as they have discussed the amount of time that is necessary because they know very well that senators must travel to the chamber from the Victoria Building.
Having said that, perhaps what we should do is not rush to make a rule change. Perhaps what we can do is leave it with the leadership to basically measure that fact at every given moment. We must be mindful that senators need to come over and then just steer around some of these issues that we are really importing as upholding the fact that Senator Murray was absolutely right. That can be done tactfully by writing it into the right kind of document, more towards the ignoring of the rule than towards the finding of privilege. If one were to find a question of privilege here it would not be the Senate as a whole that would be found violating the privileges of senators, it would be the Speaker. I am not prepared to make that kind of finding on something that is ever so slight.
What we should do is back off for a moment, air the issues and see if we can do it without a rule change. However, if necessary, we can report back to the chamber, thank Senator Murray, because it was a very valid point that was raised, and make a recommendation on paper that the leaders follow these kinds of rules. Having made an assertion of principles, we would leave the situation largely where it was.
I do not know if that would satisfy Senator Murray, because I was not here earlier, but putting "15 minutes" into a rule will mean that one could just keep doing 15 minutes all day. There is nothing wrong with that if what we want is to cause the bells to ring. I remember one time when we started the bells to ring and Senator Murray had them stopped. Perhaps there is a subtle way we can get at this.
Are we in camera?
The Chairman: No.
Senator Cools: In any event, there is a way that we can basically cause a correction to what happened without going about a whole scale condemnation and rushing to make rules. Rules, as we know, are very rigid things. We are supposed to be senators. We are supposed to be able to operate with a minimum of rules. I hope that was useful.
Senator Murray: Madam Chair, I had no thought that we should rush to a rule change. The last thing I expected was to come out of this meeting with a rule change. I had hoped that if there were agreement, the officers and staff would be asked to draft some options in terms of rules that the committee could examine at its leisure. I do not feel that there is any urgency to change the rule but I should like to go in that direction.
Let me say why I believe we need a rule change. The bells ring for a purpose. The purpose is to summon those senators who are not seated in the chamber to come and vote. At one time, all senators were in this building. They were doubled up, et cetera. Now they are here and in the East Block and in the Victoria Building. Therefore, it takes more than 15 minutes to get here.
I do not completely share Senator Grafstein's concern about the ability of an obstreperous minority to hold up the Senate all day on procedural votes. Some of that can be done, and it was much more possible to do it before 1991 than it is now. Before 1991, the rules were impossible. The government could not call the Orders of the Day, for example. If a determined minority wanted to stop the government from getting to the Orders of the Day they would, as you well know, stop the government.
Senator DeWare: They did.
Senator Murray: They did. However, Senator Grafstein, to the extent that a determined minority can hold up the Senate by procedural votes, they would do it with 60 minutes. It now takes leave to have anything less than a 60-minute bell. If we must have a bell, a 15-minute bell is better in that context than a 60-minute bell.
Finally, and I am speaking completely for myself and am prepared to be disowned by my own colleagues at the appropriate time on this, I would not object to a rule that provided that it takes more than, as it is now, one or two senators to successfully require a standing vote. I believe the number is six in the House of Commons. I am told it is five. I would not object to having it at half a dozen to trigger a standing vote in this place. However, that is for another day.
Senator Cools: No change in the rules.
Senator Murray: We can change the rules by a simple majority, senator.
Senator Cools: If the House of Commons needs five, they have three times, so by their count we should be able to do it with one, and two is a lot.
Senator Grafstein: I accept what Senator Murray has said. Maybe the best way to deal with this is to look at a couple of drafting options and see whether or not the drafting options are better or worse than the existing rules and then we can make a more detailed analysis. I always find it hard to talk about principles and rules without seeing the proposed change in the rule. Perhaps a change in the rule might be more felicitous and helpful.
On the whole, I am reluctant to change rules. There must be a strong case for a change in the rules, as opposed to a particular unfortunate incident with one particular senator, and it may cover others. I am convinced that the best way to approach this is not to talk in general terms. If the officials would like to make some proposals, then it is better for us to view the matter in concrete terms as opposed to having an endless debate about principles in the air. I am open to that.
Senator Carstairs: I am in full agreement. Let us take our time, if we are to make a change in the rule, which is what Senator Murray has suggested. I feel the staff needs to come forward with some concrete options and I thought they would do that today, I must say.
The other situation is that I feel we must make a decision today as to whether or not there has been a breach of privilege
Senator Murray: Perhaps we could adopt Senator Cools' suggestion in the report, however, just to cover ourselves, that the whips take it as a sense of the committee that pending further consideration in the rules they not go below 20 minutes. If that could be put in the report it would be helpful.
I cannot help you on whether I have a real question of privilege or not. The Speaker thought there was a prima facie case.
The Chairman: Several staff members and assistants, with the collaboration of five or six senators, are taking a look at the rules in general, which have not been looked at in any in-depth fashion since 1991. That will be going on this summer.
Do you wish us to report that we will be looking at the pros and cons of a rule change over the summer and giving a report? There is one day left. There could be this September issue as well. Should we have the whips discuss with leadership before calling? Is that what you are looking at?
Senator DeWare: We can come up with a decision if we only have two to three days left.
Senator Beaudoin: Do we have a conclusion from our experts as to whether there is a question of privilege? I understand that the study has been made, has it not?
Joseph Maingot, in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, states that privilege is a fundamental right and necessary for the exercise of the constitutional function. It applies to anything a member may say or do within the scope of his duties in the course of parliamentary business.
That is clear. I signal that to conclude.
Senator Carstairs: If I were to draft a report, if we need to have a report as a result of this meeting, my own view would be that we do not believe that there was a violation of privilege in that the whips were following what are the current rules. However, there certainly was a legitimate point of order and that a very important matter of senators' rights has been raised by the Honourable Senator Murray. We will be working on options. I would not say we will be looking at rule changes, rather that we will be looking at options. Until we come forward with another report, it is our recommendation to the chamber that a minimum of 15 or 20 minutes be a minimum period for the bells to ring, unless it was a clear example of one vote to immediately follow another vote.
The Chairman: Does that meet with the approval of senators?
Senator Murray: I thought that the recommendation in a sense is not just to the chamber but to the whips, in particular, that they not agree on anything less than 20 minutes.
Senator Grafstein: As Senator Beaudoin points out, one of the rare powers that a senator has is the question of privilege. Privilege is broadly cast for good reason. Privilege is meant to be broad in its application.
Although I might have some reservations about it in this instance, I am still loath to view this as a point of order, as a question of privilege.
I would rather see honourable senators working on a solution to the problem that Senator Murray has presented. Perhaps at that he could withdraw his question so we do not have to opine on that.
Once I am asked to opine on a question of privilege, I must do a fair bit of homework, as I am sure Senator Beaudoin does. I do not want to be in a position where we say this is a question of order and it is a question of privilege because it might be an unfortunate precedent.
I would rather deal with the substance of the matter and, then, if Senator Murray is satisfied -- and leave it to him to decide, not anyone else -- it allows us not to deal with this question of whether or not this was a question of privilege or a question of order.
I am loath in any way, shape or form to inhibiting the rule that applies to privilege for many different reasons.
Senator Murray: I hope it is understood that I do not take it in any personal sense whether you decide whether or not there was a breach of privilege. That is what the committee is called upon to decide. The Speaker decided there was a prima facie case. The committee must now decide whether or not there was a breach.
We were told at the opening by one or other or both of the officials that it is perhaps dubious whether the Senate, having made a decision with leave, can breach its own privileges. I take that point. However, at the same time, the privilege that has been breached could be as particular as one person's privilege. There was a busload who accompanied me that day. There could have been a breach of privilege.
I am loath, I think for the same reasons as Senator Grafstein, to come down hard on this issue. I hesitate to say, "No, Senator Murray does not have a question of privilege," because of what that may mean in terms of precedent.
Perhaps you have the best solution. I came here simply to get the remedy of a rules change and hope that will come eventually. If you wish to leave the question of privilege hanging, that is fine with me.
Senator Grafstein: Let me tell you why I am hesitant, and I have the greatest of respect for Senator Carstairs who is no longer here.
What she said, I thought, was a little inconsistent with the question of privilege. What she said, if I took it correctly, is that, because the rules in effect were lax in this particular point or were not appropriate, it is not a question of privilege, it is more of a question of order. I think that distinction could be a dangerous one. As Senator Cools pointed out, there are many things that are not in the rules. I think we are getting into murky water when dealing with this, unless we go through all the precedents and do a hard piece of work to determine whether or not it is fair to say it is privilege or not.
Senator Murray was looking for a remedy, he was not looking for a procedural sword. The committee has said, "We will address the remedy as best we can." At the end of the time, he can then determine whether he wishes to leave on the record the question of privilege, which we then would have to opine on. On the other hand, he can say, "I am satisfied, and in the circumstances I will withdraw my privilege because I have had a remedy for the actions taken."
I leave it completely up to him for his discretion, but I am loath at this moment to pass on his question of privilege. I worry about that. I am not sure I do not agree with him that there is a question of privilege. I just do not know.
Mr. O'Brien: Honourable senators, while it is true that the Speaker agreed with the grievance on a prima facie basis that Senator Murray raised earlier this week, the motion that was adopted is a general motion that the rights of all senators to be able to participate in standing votes and what actually did happen on June 9 be referred to this committee.
This is our order of reference. This is in support of what Senator Grafstein is saying that we have a broad order of reference here. The committee may not want to comment at this stage on whether or not there was a breach.
Senator Murray: I can conclude with this, honourable senators. I take what the clerk has said about that. If I were forced to vote on the matter, I think my position would be that a bell that is of such short duration that a busload of senators from the Victoria Building cannot get here in time to vote is a breach of their privilege.
If I had to vote, that is the way I would vote. For the moment, I am happy to go along with the suggestions that have been made. I would certainly be loath to see the committee decide that this was not a question of privilege. That would concern me greatly. I would debate such a report, if it came to the floor of the Senate.
Senator Beaudoin: The fact that the Speaker of the Senate has referred this question to this committee for an answer, in my opinion, is prima facie evidence that he thinks that there is a question of privilege. Then he relies on this special committee. The question, I agree, is broad and difficult. If I have to vote immediately, I think there is a breach of privilege, but I would like to have more time to reach that conclusion. If I read the definition in Maingot, obviously there is a breach of privilege if a person is complaining that five minutes is not enough for him to vote. The vote in the Senate is fundamental; do not forget that. If we have to take a decision immediately, I would say it is a breach of privilege, but I would like to have more time. Perhaps there is another way to settle this problem.
Senator Andreychuk: I think there might be a point of privilege arising from Senator Grafstein saying there would be two members here who wanted to study this in-depth, implying, I suppose, that the rest of us did not want to study it in-depth. We can get ourselves into a lot of trouble.
Senator Grafstein: I did not mean to impugn anyone else's good work here.
Senator Andreychuk: I wanted the record straight on that.
I am very uncomfortable, as I do not think I know what this committee is doing. It is valuable that we want to move cautiously and that we do not make a decision today. I think we have to study the matter. However, I do not think that we would be acting honourably if we merely say, "Let us see if we can get some amendments to the rules and, then, if that satisfies a particular senator, he may or may not continue with his question of privilege." That is his privilege.
I do not think we should wait, because we would be acting irresponsibly. We have to have a strategy of what we are doing here to get to the point. I am sure that Senator Murray will be governed by his own conscience.
The Chairman: I do not think there is any question of that.
Senator Andreychuk: I do not think I know what we are doing. I know we will make some amendments to the rules, and that is good, but there is another issue that we might want to deal with as we are studying that. However, we have been given a reference, and we have to deal with it. Whether we do it today, tomorrow or three months from now, we have to do it.
The Chairman: I do not think there is any question of that, Senator Andreychuk. The point is that some want a change to the rules and others do not.
Senator Cools: The tone of the discussion among members has changed dramatically since Senator Carstairs left, and I want to say clearly there is a question of privilege. There is no doubt that there is a question of privilege. I said it clearly on the floor of the chamber when I spoke to Senator Murray. What is clearly emerging here, however, is that senators around the table do not feel they know enough about privilege. In addition to that, they are urging that we do not rush to a decision today, that we take some time to consider the matter in a more studied way. I would be prepared to support that.
The Senate has made a decision and it is now in the committee's possession; it cannot be withdrawn. It is now beyond the power of Senator Murray. The majority of senators seem to be expressing a need to study the issue of the privileges of senators a bit more deeply and a bit more comprehensively, and I would support that. To that extent, I am happy to say let us keep the order before us, let us keep the reference before us, and let us work on it and press on.
Senator Murray: What about an interim report along the lines suggested?
Senator Cools: An interim report could say that the committee is looking at the matter. I do not want to let anyone believe I was hedging in any way, but I do see it as a scripting solution where you can uphold all our values and principles and privileges. I was not prepared to make a decision that Senator DeWare and Senator Mercier and Senator Molgat were in breach of our privileges. These issues are a lot more slippery than we think, but there is no doubt that there is a question of privilege. I want to reinforce that point.
The Chairman: Is there agreement, then, to make an interim report today and that one of the items in that report could be that we feel there should be a minimum of 20 minutes on any bell?
Senator Murray: As advice to the chamber.
The Chairman: Or advice to the whips, pending a further report, which we can have at our first meeting in September.
Is that agreed?
Senator Grafstein: I think it should be an advisory to the whips and to the Speaker that, in the interim, we hope they follow this. I do not think we should turn that into a binding rule.
The Chairman: Is 20 minutes acceptable as an advisory?
Senator Murray: And that the committee will deliberate further as to whether there was a breach in the situation.
Senator Beaudoin: We should say that in the report.
Senator Rossiter: I think we should be careful about saying there will be a further report in September. Perhaps it should read that a further report will be issued when the committee next sits or something along those lines.
The Chairman: The wording could be "at the next sitting of the committee." Is that all right with you, Senator Murray?
Senator Murray: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: That is great.
Senator Cools: Could we take a look at having the scripting before committee members? I am not one for just leaving things with committee chairmen. I would like to take a look at the scripting of the report.
The Chairman: We do not have it officially yet, but it will be very short.
The committee adjourned.