Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
(Formerly Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders)
Issue 16 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 17, 2002
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:07 p.m. to consider matters pursuant to its mandate under rule 86(1)(f) of the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Jack Austin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are not in camera for any of the first items on the agenda today. We are in open session. The first item relates to tributes, on a motion of Senator Lapointe on December 4. If we have time, we will also have an information briefing for a discussion on rules for joint committees.
With respect to our agenda, there is a rumour washing around that the chamber may not meet next week, but that committees may well continue with their business. I wonder what the wish of this committee might be with respect to meeting next week.
Senator Stratton: If we are not sitting?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Stratton: No.
The Chairman: All right. Does anyone wish to speak to the other point?
Senator Di Nino: If that is to be the case, there should be some coordination among the committee chairs so that there may be either one day of committee meetings or one and one half days, instead of one committee meeting on a Monday and on a Wednesday. That would make some sense for those who would like to attend.
The Chairman: Senator Di Nino, you have a good point. If the committees are planning to meet on Wednesday, we could have our Wednesday meeting if there will be sufficient numbers in attendance. I will ask our clerk to call the members of this committee to see whether they will be in attendance. Obviously, there would need to be attendance from both sides of the House. If there are eight or nine of us, then perhaps we could proceed. If there are not at least eight members willing to come, then we will cancel our meeting for next Wednesday. Is that acceptable?
Senator Murray: I appreciate what Senator Di Nino has said. In an ideal world, we would be able to have the chairmen of committees coordinate matters so that we have one or one and one half days of committee meetings. I am chairman of another committee, the Finance Committee. We have put the Auditor General to some considerable inconvenience, although she was very gracious about it. She has agreed to visit our committee next Tuesday morning. I would be reluctant to change that now unless it could be done without inconveniencing her.
Finally, I think it is a great idea for the Senate not to sit when there is insufficient business, but allow the committees to sit. That is to say, open up several days for committees to meet. It is a very good idea and I want to cooperate in every possible way.
The Chairman: I believe that other committees are sitting on Wednesday. I am not proposing that we meet on the Tuesday, but perhaps we could meet over lunch next Wednesday if there are sufficient numbers of senators on this committee available to do so. I will ask Mr. O'Brien to poll the committee and we will see where we go from there. Because it is not a regular time, we will not necessarily conclude anything until we meet the week beyond. I certainly would like to meet next week to accommodate Senator Carney, who wants to talk to us about video conferencing and attendance.
Today, we have the motion on tributes. You have received background notes. I would like to have Senator LaPointe outline the purposes of his motion and also the direction of his recommendations. We can then review the background on tributes and have a discussion, if that is agreeable.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: As I indicated during one of my speeches in the Senate, although I have not served in the Upper House for very long, I have observed on several occasions — particularly when tribute was paid to Senator Mercier, even though the former Government Whip eschewed such lengthy tributes — that when tribute is paid to senators in celebration of a particular exploit, or upon the retirement or death of a once notable senator — of course senators are forever notable figures — many senators rise to the occasion. From a human standpoint, the process is extremely validating, but I believe a great deal of time is lost in the process.
I proposed that tributes be paid by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in this instance, by Senator Carstairs, as well as by the Leader of the Opposition and, in exceptional cases, by a close personal friend who can pay homage to a person whom many newly appointed senators have never met.
I have observed on several occasions that some senators seize upon this opportunity to recount personal stories about their relationships with the senator. Often, the tributes have gone one for one hour and a half. Perhaps a more appropriate occasion for this kind of tribute would be a private gathering where people would be free to reminisce. However, I do not think the Senate is the appropriate forum for interminable tributes. Occasionally, the senator who is speaking talks more about himself that about the person to whom he is paying tribute.
I believe that is more or less what I said. If senators wish to pay tribute to the family in particular, then I suggest they attend the funeral and send a telegram, or flowers, or whatever.
You are all aware of my efforts to enhance the image of the Senate and the work it does. An effort is being made in this regard. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion. One of my favorite expressions is: I respect your opinion.
[English]
The Chairman: We could discuss a limited number of tributes, perhaps one or two from each side with each party rationing them out, and giving the independents a role too, or we could discuss it in terms of time, that is, half an hour maximum with 15 minutes allocated to the government, 10 to the opposition and 5 to the independents. There is any number of variations on the theme.
The third option would be to do nothing.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: My preference was to allot five minutes to the Leader of the Government, five minutes to the Leader of the Opposition, and five minutes to one other senator, a close friend who may have been more deeply affected and who may have something to say. Independent senators could be allotted two minutes.
[English]
The Chairman: The problem is that the third category, particularly ``close friend,'' can be quite a subjective one.
Senator Lapointe: My first idea was five minutes for the leader and five minutes for the opposition, and that is it. If you wish to do more, have a private party, even at the Senate, but do not waste the Senate's time.
The Chairman: Thank you for raising the topic. I would like Jamie to take us through the history of tributes after those who wish to speak have done so.
Senator Bryden: I understand that we are talking about applying rules to the making of tributes. It is possible for people to request that tributes not be paid to them. I have a letter on file with the Speaker and the clerk to the effect that if I, to the chagrin of you all, die while in office, there should be no tributes.
Senator Murray: Would you agree to a moment's silence?
Senator Joyal: I will want to speak.
Senator Bryden: I want to deal with that, too.
Senator Murray: I will have a mass said.
Senator Bryden: If some notice were taken, then a moment of silence would be appropriate from my point of view, and nothing more. One of the reasons for writing the letter is, if I am alive when I leave this place, I do not want people like my friend, Serge Joyal, talking about me when I cannot talk back. I would be turning over in my grave if I had to listen to Senator Murray and others taking shots.
It is open to individual senators to control what happens. If you want no tributes when you retire, you can simply say that, or you could request no tributes other than five minutes from your leader.
That is a personal thing. It does not control certain very embarrassing situations such as arose, in my view, last year. Two very senior and very well liked senators retired a week apart. It got to the point where I was counting the number of senators who gave tributes to each retiring senator to determine whether I should give a tribute to the second senator, because I thought she was behind by two. Both senators were from my province and both were highly respected. The tributes to each of them took about an hour and a half. People, particularly the public in the gallery, wonder why one senator gets more tributes than another.
Senator Rompkey: I hardly think that for one of the great speech makers in the Senate, a minute of silence would be appropriate. I believe it was said about Oscar Wilde that his sins may be scarlet but his speeches were read. Let that be said about Senator Bryden.
Senator Bryden: Do not give me a tribute now.
Senator Rompkey: I want my 15 minutes.
I wish to support Senator Lapointe. I subscribe in principle to what he is saying. We never had that experience in the House of Commons. People pass from the House of Commons, but they do not pass away from the House of Commons. I guess that is the difference.
I do not recall any experience in the House of Commons with the issue of tributes. Since I have been here, which has been a little longer than Senator Lapointe, I have also felt that the time taken was excessive. I think we should have a policy.
Senator Murray: One thought that occurs to me off the top of my head is that we could limit this quite neatly, if we wanted to, by agreeing that on a day when there are to be tributes, the time allotted for Senators' Statements would be devoted to that. In other words, we would have 15 minutes overall with 3 minutes apiece, and the parties could work out who would speak. The other possibility would be to add 15 minutes, but be guided by that rule. Fifteen people could speak for one minute each, five for three minutes, or whatever. It seems to me that the way we run Senators' Statements works quite well, both in the total amount of time allotted and the strict limits on individuals.
Senator Di Nino: I, too, would like to support this idea. I think we must bring some order into what is happening. I sometimes think that the person we are praising would be embarrassed to be part of this. Some of the commentary has been totally irrelevant, and in some cases, added absolutely no value to the discussion. I am in total support of the principle. There must be some rationality brought into this.
I want to make two specific comments. First, I am concerned about exceptions. Exceptions are very difficult. When Di Nino passes away, since he was the only Italian on the Conservative side, should an exception be made for him? It becomes very subjective. If we are going to have exceptions, there should be some very strict rules about when they apply, such as the passing away of a prime minister. It could be extended to some degree.
My other concern is the ability of a senator to ask for leave. That would totally destroy this. I cannot see anyone withholding leave for a tribute.
I think there should be a time limit and a number limit, and also a limit on the time that anyone can speak. Certainly the leaders on both sides should be allowed to speak, perhaps two more people from each side and maybe one independent, and that would be the maximum. In some cases, that maximum may not be reached. With a limit of 5 minutes for the leaders and 3 minutes for the other senators, that would come to a maximum of 25 minutes, or half an hour with applause.
We should discuss the alternatives, but we should pay particular attention to leave and to exceptions.
Senator Kroft: I have listened carefully to those on the other side, and indeed, I have heard some very eloquent statements. Some believe that the essence of this place is collegiality, camaraderie and relationships and that achievement over the years should be recognized. All of this, I think, can be very impressive. My answer to that is: the correct form and the opportunity can be created, in those cases, outside the chamber and not occupy the time of the chamber.
I emphasize the sense of the motion — the principle of a very limited approach to this. I would err on the side of limitation. The tradition that we should try to establish is one of no exceptions. There is a great deal of tradition, and a tradition of no exceptions can be as important as anything else. The idea of a fixed amount of time, but with the creation of exceptions, moderations or variations will lead us to a slippery slope that will remove us from those traditions. I would support the principle, with limited time and no exceptions.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: I agree that there have been, and still are, instances of abuse. Before we take a restrictive approach and adopt a clear, specific policy to limit the time allotted for tributes, I think we need to make a distinction between a senator who dies while in office, a senator who has served for one or two years, and one who sat in this House for 20 or 25 years.
Some tributes are reserved for senators who are retiring, while still others are reserved for those who die. Perhaps Mr. Robertson will focus on this when he discusses his research findings with us, but we need to consider what the practice is elsewhere and the kind of tribute paid to persons in public service. I believe the National Assembly follows a certain practice. It would be interesting to see what other legislatures do in this case.
[English]
The Chairman: We are ready for the briefing after the first round of discussions.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: I too think that there are other places where one can reminisce and recall good times spent with colleagues. If we could agree on a certain policy, we would have to ensure fairness and not allow for any exceptions.
For example, if we were to adopt Senator Murray's formula, I would have no problem with that, but we should not rule out other options, as Senator Losier-Cool said. I like his proposal, because it is straightforward and allows for some flexibility.
[English]
Senator Joyal: This issue raises a fundamental element of the nature of the Senate. Traditionally, senators could take part in debates in the Senate with no time limits. Of course, through the years, the approach has evolved into what I call the ``funnel syndrome.'' In other words, there are always other situations that limit and restrict and we end up more or less on a par with the other place.
I am not saying it is not right to do that, but if we are to act on this on the basis of the question raised by Senator Lapointe, we must be conscious of our actions here — limiting the right of senators to speak freely on an open issue with no government requirement placed on it. Before pronouncing on one final option, I would rather be more lenient and develop a formula that would manage that item on the agenda of the day when other government business has been dealt with. Following that, if a senator wishes to take part on that motion, he or she is able to do so in a freer time. Put it on the agenda so that the proper objective of Senator Lapointe is satisfied. He does not want to delay government and House agendas.
I want to put that point on the table now — the good is the enemy of the best. Those are elements to be considered when we pronounce on this issue.
The Chairman: I would like to emphasize, for senators who suggest that it appear on the Order Paper after government business, perhaps after inquiries, that it be the last item, and with a more flexible time frame for those senators who wish to be there and to participate in the tributes. The tributes are recorded in our Hansard for the families and friends who are interested. You might also extend your suggestion to Senators' Statements, in terms of their position on the Order Paper. That may be provocative.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I would like to support my colleague, Senator Joyal. I have been a senator for a number of years. In the House of Commons, a debate is held upon adjournment. A motion to adjourn is tabled in the House and an MP rises to speak to the motion for a minimum of seven minutes. As a rule, three or four tributes can be included in the first half hour.
During my time in the Senate, I have witnessed a number of colleagues who have been especially touched by a person's death. Therefore, I have no problem with their paying tribute to that individual in some way. I agree with Senator Lapointe, however, that some kind of time limit should be imposed. The best time for tributes would be after the Routine of Business and the Orders of the Day.
[English]
Senator Bryden: In addition to placing it after the business of the Senate, could we not also provide that it be on Thursday afternoon and that it not require a quorum?
The Chairman: We will take note of the suggestion.
Senator Stratton: Very good.
The Chairman: This means you change your letter.
Senator Di Nino: That is right, you would withdraw it. To fully understand the implications of Senator Joyal's comment, which has some merit, we would also have to understand that we are mainly discussing deceased senators. I am not sure that it has been as great a problem with deceased senators — if there is a problem — as with retiring senators. Often, retiring senators are in the gallery with their families. To have the tribute placed after the business of the Senate is finished, with a skeleton crew on a Thursday afternoon, may not necessarily send a positive message. It is important that point be kept in mind as we discuss this.
The other point contained in the report is that we should have a system allowing members to submit a limited written tribute to the retiring or deceased person to be included as part of the debate, so it would be there for posterity.
The Chairman: That is an interesting suggestion. Instead of delivering it orally, simply deliver it to be included in Hansard.
Senator Andreychuk: This committee suggested that two years ago.
The Chairman: I do not want to prevent senators from having further discussion before they are briefed.
Senator Kroft: While there is a certain attraction in a solution that allows the opportunity to speak without taking up the time of the house, I share Senator Di Nino's view that if we do this at a less auspicious time, with a lower attendance and when people's minds are on other things, we could lose sight of the fact that the content of the speech is important. It is a showing of respect and appreciation before the peers. If you remove that from the significant focus of the House, and move it to a time when there may be few people there and attention levels are lower, it does not speak to what a tribute is all about.
The Chairman: Shall we have Mr. Robertson take us through the background?
Mr. James R. Robertson, Law and Government Division, Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament: Many points have been raised in response to Senator Losier-Cool's comment.
I did not look at all the provinces. Certainly, the practice in most legislatures is to allow tributes on the death or resignation of individuals. These do not appear to be set out in procedural rules or standing orders because they are unpredictable. There is not one size that fits all. It depends on the circumstances, the contribution of the individual, et cetera.
In the British House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Australian House of Representatives, the practice seems to be that each of the recognized parties' leaders or a designate makes a tribute, and the comments are kept fairly short.
In some cases, the sitting is suspended or adjourned. If a senator in office dies when the Senate is in session, it is not uncommon for the Senate to adjourn immediately after prayers, particularly on the day of the funeral or just before, to allow senators to attend, and as a mark of respect to the individual.
The options set out on pages 3 and 4 of the briefing note have been raised. The suggestions allowed for a number of speakers, restricted the number of speakers or restricted the amount of time, and provided certain guidelines that may or may not be necessary.
During the debate on the original inquiry, there were references to how many of the speeches go well beyond the public service of the senators or individuals involved and into personal anecdotes, which causes further delays. We can look at the time of day set aside for tributes, and other avenues. It was pointed out that on March 26, upon the death of Dalton Camp, Senator Atkins gave notice of an inquiry under the rules of the Senate, and he used this opportunity to speak at length about the contributions and life of Mr. Camp, which shows that tributes are not the only way in which the death of a notable individual is recognized in the Senate.
Changing the order of business would show the proper due respect for the individual, and at the same time not disrupt the sitting of the Senate. Those two issues need to be looked at in terms of the amount of time taken. If it is earlier in the day, perhaps tighter restrictions need to be imposed than if it is later. However, later in the day is not as appropriate in some cases, particularly for former Prime Ministers or someone such as Senator Molgat, a former Speaker of the Senate, who died while still a senator. Obviously, that situation is a little different from a former senator who has been retired for a number of years.
The Chairman: Perhaps I could start a round of discussion by saying that we practice two principles. One is an agreement between the leaders on tributes — when they will be held and for whom they will be held. That is the way we and other chambers do it.
The issue is not whether we should be managing the timing of a tribute, but the management of its place on the Order Paper and the amount of time taken. Another idea is that we set aside 30 minutes for tributes, with an appropriate distribution of that time, but not bar other senators from providing tributes at a later time on the Order Paper if they wish to continue. The principal concern is that at the head of our Order Paper, we have public business to deal with that usually has priority. The question then is not whether we should give tributes, but how far we want to disturb the public business priorities. Could we discuss that particular idea?
Senator Rompkey: When senators are sworn in, as we saw yesterday, there is simply one speech by each leader. It would be very consistent if, when senators retire or are deceased, there was one speech by each leader. This is what Senator Lapointe is suggesting.
The Chairman: Could it be the leader or the deputy?
Senator Rompkey: It could be the leader or a designate. On the other hand, I recall that when Dalton Camp died, Senator Atkins was not present and able to have his say. Dalton Camp was the kind of Canadian personality who deserved reflection in the Senate, and Senator Atkins used another vehicle to do that. I thought what he did was very appropriate. We could say each leader or designate would be able to make a tribute, while other people could use opportunities elsewhere on the Order Paper if they so desire.
The Chairman: We could place a specific item at an appropriate place after public business, after public bills and so on. He used an inquiry. However, we could set up a separate category — ``Tributes.'' A senator could give notice of tributes and other senators could then have, not unlimited time, but reasonable time.
Senator Rompkey: If you had the leaders do it, it would reinforce the point that Senator Di Nino is making. The senator is present with family and so on.
The Chairman: People would be there for the official tributes.
Senator Rompkey: You want that to be an occasion.
Senator Stratton: I have deliberately not commented because I wanted to listen to what everyone else had to say. In this instance, you are reshuffling the deck. A group could decide that a particular individual is important — to your side, to our side. We will have an inquiry, or whatever it is, and then off the Senate goes for two hours, paying tributes. I do not think that you are changing anything. It is important to recognize, as Senator Joyal has said, that there is a tradition here of unlimited free speech.
Could it not be done in writing? For example, you limit the tributes to the two leaders, or their designates, and then thereafter have written tributes submitted to the families, if it is a death, and for the public record. You clean it up by doing that. You are not merely shuffling the deck and putting it off somewhere else where it could take two or three hours — and it will take two or three hours. You know that. I am against that. I still must take this back to our caucus.
The Chairman: I have a question for Mr. Robertson. Is there any known practice in the parliamentary system such as tabling a speech rather than making it?
Mr. Robertson: To my knowledge, there is no such practice in a parliamentary system for the debates or journals of the legislature itself. It is not uncommon in committee proceedings, however, to annex copies of briefs or presentations that were not given in full at the actual meeting.
The Chairman: In the U.S. system, it is quite common for senators to put speeches into the record. They look like they were given in the Senate or the House of Representatives, but in fact they were not.
Mr. Robertson: That is my understanding.
Senator Gauthier: I would like to see a good debate on this question of tabling things. I do not think that I could accept it easily.
[Translation]
For personal reasons, I find this to be unacceptable in a Parliament.
Second, I would not want the leaders to be responsible for the time allotted to tributes. They already control the time allotted for the Routine of Business and the time for tributes should be separate from this item of business. How should we go about putting a limit on tributes? I have been serving in the Senate for several years and while some do go overboard on the time when paying tribute to another, most senators do not fall into that category. A few will go on forever, but generally that does not happen. The nicest speeches that I have heard have lasted a mere two or three minutes.
Senate Lapointe: Let me just clarify something. The word ``tradition'' was mentioned. I have no desire to break with tradition in any way, because I do appreciate the Senate's noble, fine traditions.
However, time is being wasted and some traditions could stand to be improved upon. Since being appointed to the Senate, I have twice been present during interminable tributes. Both times, once these tributes concluded, senators moved quickly to report the various items on the Order Paper. Not one senator spoke as he or she was entitled to, since it was already 5:15 p.m. Senators had had enough and wanted to go home. I found the whole incident to be quite irritating.
I am new to the Senate and I will admit that I do make some mistakes. However, it is my duty as a senator and human being to voice my opinions. That is what I am doing.
As I see it, if we decide to set aside time at the end of the sitting for tributes, as someone suggested earlier, we run the risk of having only four senators present, the four who intend to make speeches, and all the staff will have to stay as well. Even though my friend Senator Gauthier may disagree with the suggestion, we could include an appendix to the Debates of the Senate. I understand this is done elsewhere. When a senator has something he or she would like to say, the text of the tribute could be appended to the Debates. Every senator would then have an opportunity to pay tribute, if he or she so wishes. Let me just say one last time that even though some tributes can be extremely eloquent, they also result in a great deal of wasted time. Senators could continue writing brilliant speeches. Anyone who cares to read them would have the opportunity to do so.
[English]
The Chairman: The point on which you left off is really an important point of departure. The question is, are we willing to contemplate the tabling of speeches, as if given, in our Hansard? Is there support for that suggestion here?
Senator Murray: No.
Senator Lapointe: No, as far as I am concerned, you cannot publish something as if it were said when it was only written.
Senator Stratton: Is there some other form that it could take?
Senator Di Nino: Hansard would reflect that it was not the spoken word. The distinction would be there. Obviously, I would agree that you do not want to fool the public.
The Chairman: I have an option. Each of the leaders could speak, and then everyone else who wishes to speak simply gets up at that point and says, ``Honourable senators, I ask permission to table remarks in the course of this tribute.'' We could have a rule that 8 or 10 people could table remarks. Is that something you would consider?
Senator Di Nino: I like the idea of letting the two leaders speak and then everyone else would speak after the business of the Senate. Two things would happen. Likely the focus of the tribute or the family would no longer be there, so many senators would not be interested in getting up to speak. Second, because it would be late in the day, that would also mean fewer senators wanting to speak. That alternative has some merit.
I like the ``official'' element of having the leaders speak — or two people, one from each side, the leader and/or his or her designate. For anyone else, there would be a time on the Order Paper at the end of the day to put some of those things on the record. The leadership must stay and listen.
Senator Stratton: I would like to deal with the first issue about which we were talking, because surely to goodness there will be occasions when someone would really like to put their feelings down on paper to present to the family, particularly, in remembrance. You can do that in a letter.
The Chairman: It does not show the public respect to which Senator Kroft refers.
Senator Stratton: That is exactly my point. How can you deal with that issue out of respect for individual senators who may want to express those feelings? You must recognize that that should take place.
I want simply to limit it in some form, rather than tie up the time of the Senate in hearing all those feelings expressed. Some feelings should be heard. Cannot we do it in another form?
Senator Murray: Perhaps this is going further than we need to. We do not need a new rule to permit a senator to do what Senator Atkins did the other day, which is to give a Notice of Inquiry and, on the appointed day, get up and draw the attention of the Senate to the passing or the retirement or whatever it is of a particular person.
The Chairman: We would not limit inquiries in any way.
Senator Murray: I could put forward a Notice of Motion that, on the appropriate day, I would move that the Senate express its condolences or its appreciation or whatever it is. Let us just leave that aside.
The situation that Senator Lapointe is bringing before us is when tributes on the death or retirement of a senator overtake the normal business of the house. The question before us, it seems to me, is do we want to set out in our rules a means of limiting the time devoted to that? I do not think we need to say it shall be one speaker per party, or one- plus. If we do it, let us say 15 minutes, the same amount of time as we devote to Senators' Statements, or 20 minutes. Pick a time period. That is the total time devoted to it. Within that, we can say that individual speeches or statements cannot be longer than three minutes, or whatever.
There is no need for us to get into notices, motions, inquiries and all the rest of it.
Senator Rompkey: I have some sympathy with what Senator Murray is suggesting. You set out the options — limiting people or time. He is suggesting that we limit the time. With regard to tabling speeches, is that precedent setting?
The Chairman: It is the thin edge of the wedge.
Senator Rompkey: This is Parliament. This is the place where you speak, not where you write. As a matter of fact, there is a longstanding tradition that speakers should not read. There may have even been a rule that you could not read, and you should not. This is Parliament, where you speak. I am a little concerned about tabling speeches. I think we are getting into dangerous waters there.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: I agree with Senator Murray. I believe the Rules of the Senate allow for the opportunity to pay tribute to persons in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps the ways of paying tribute could be discussed during a caucus meeting. I have no idea how your caucus works, but at our caucus meetings, the Deputy Leader might say, in reference to the Orders of the Day, that on a given day, the Senate will hear tributes to a particular senator. Everyone then takes out his or her notes and feels obligated in some way to draft a speech. Instead of doing that, perhaps we could tell them how to proceed, as we did for Dalton Camp. I also disagree in so far as written speeches are concerned, even though I am convinced this happens in certain legislatures.
[English]
Senator Kroft: I do not like the idea of tabling written statements. It takes us into a range of other issues and is inconsistent with what I feel is the proper parliamentary tradition. I am rather persuaded by Senator Murray's view that the essence of the thing is the time we take, and not the details of the allocation. In my view, everyone in the house, within 15 minutes, could probably express the totality of his or her thoughts. I know Senator Murray has a reason for this, because he is, not to be unduly complimentary, one of the best of us at saying things in a short form.
I have always found it much harder to write a short speech than a long one. It is a challenge to be brief. There are not many things that cannot be said in five minutes. I find the Senators' Statements discipline of three minutes a real challenge when there is something I want to say. I can usually do it. Last year, on Mitchell Sharp's 90th birthday, I invited him to the gallery and used the opportunity to make a statement. I had three minutes only. With hard work, I was able to say what I wanted to say in the three minutes. I think we need a time limit. Let us set a rule.
The Chairman: Let me try to draw a consensus, because I think there is one now. Let me remind you that we had a similar discussion on Senators' Statements. We came to two conclusions, as you remember. We said three minutes and no leave to extend the senator's statement. On the whole, our colleagues have accepted that and rarely have we had to face a request. I think everyone understands that.
Shall we draw the consensus that our report will suggest that the leaders — there will not be a rule as such for this part — will decide on an appropriate time for a tribute, and that it will be for 30 minutes, or 15 minutes?
Senator Rompkey: Fifteen.
The Chairman: Let us say 15.
Senator Losier-Cool: And Senator Murray does all the tributes.
The Chairman: Is this 15 minutes collectively, or 15 minutes for each leader?
Senator Bryden: Collectively.
The Chairman: In total?
Senator Rompkey: Yes.
Senator Bryden: For the people in the gallery, would it be worthwhile indicating to the Speaker that when he or she calls the item, that the 15 minutes normally devoted to Senators' Statements will be set aside?
The Chairman: I was not thinking of a substitution. I do not think we should deprive senators of statements. On a tribute day, it would be a 15-minute item, not a substitute for anything else. Fifteen minutes would be allocated by agreement between the two leaders, taking into account the possible interest of an independent senator in speaking. The two of them should do that. The only rule that I think we need, then, is to limit this to 15 minutes, not to be extended.
Senator Di Nino: An individual limit on each speaker?
The Chairman: No, 15 minutes to be agreed.
Senator Di Nino: Each speech not to be more than three minutes.
Senator Poulin: No. You need flexibility.
The Chairman: The leaders will have the responsibility of allocating the 15-minute period.
Senator Poulin: Be nice to your leader.
The Chairman: Is that correct? Mr. Robertson will write up a report and a recommendation. We will discuss it at a meeting shortly, within two or three weeks.
Senator Murray: I am glad we got this far. I think we will have trouble if we do not set a limit on the individual speeches. There will be all kinds of bad feelings. It will be agreed that so many will speak. Someone will go on for 10 minutes, and everyone else will be cross at the end of it and will not have had an opportunity to participate. I think you had better pick a number, three minutes or whatever. If there are more than five speakers, they will have to organize themselves to speak for one minute.
The Chairman: You are saying any number of speakers, but all within 15 minutes?
Senator Murray: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Rompkey: He is saying there should be a time limit for each speech.
The Chairman: Is that what you would like? Three minutes, including leaders?
Senator Murray: Yes.
The Chairman: All right.
Senator Gauthier: The leaders are involved in speaker allocation, but do not forget the independents.
The Chairman: I will not and cannot ever forget them.
Senator Di Nino: This does not mean that a senator cannot speak during Senators' Statements, a motion or an inquiry. There are other opportunities available.
The Chairman: That is correct.
Senator Di Nino: We are only talking about the first 15 minutes — that period of time designated for tributes on a specific day. There will be a total maximum time of 15 minutes and individual presentations will have a maximum of three or four minutes.
The Chairman: That seems to be the consensus.
Senator Andreychuk: You will not hear from me on the substance of this, but I would like clarification. In your report, will the 15 or 20 minutes, whatever is decided, be set aside for tributes to senators or tributes to others? The real problem has been tributes to senators, and not tributes to the Queen or the Queen Mother or others.
The Chairman: It will be set only for tributes to senators and former senators. If the Queen dies, it is a different story.
Senator Kroft: Does it matter if a senator dies in office or after retirement?
The Chairman: There is no distinction.
Senator Kroft: It is ``a maximum of,'' because some individuals might take the 15 minutes.
The Chairman: We have a second item that will take us only 10 minutes to deal with.
From past experiences, and in particular the problem that occurred in the Official Languages Committee when a report was tabled without any collaboration with the Senate, has come a request to renew our discussion with the House of Commons on rules for joint committees. To my amazement, I agreed that we should discuss whether we want to discuss this. From the work of Mr. Robertson, I have discovered there is far more trouble involved in preparation for this area than I ever dreamed existed. This has been the subject of discussions in the past — going back to the work of Senator Gauthier and many other colleagues today, including Senator Robertson, Senator Maheu, et cetera. I do not want a long discussion about the rules themselves, but rather, I want us to determine whether it is agreeable that we proceed with work on rules for joint committees. Also, I want us to determine whether we might ask our clerk and our research assistants to have a discussion with officials of the House of Commons to establish whether they are willing to recommend to their committee on procedures that a joint working group be established. Could I have your approval to proceed that far?
I would be delighted if anyone would like Mr. Robertson to take us through the update here. There is a great deal of interesting material, including reams of work by the Senate, that never actually produced a result. We want to close the work on this issue and accomplish something, and we may be close to that or we may not — I do not know. Mr. Robertson, as a researcher for the Library of Parliament, would you like to comment on the House of Commons side of the issue?
Mr. Robertson: When things are going smoothly, we do not realize the need for common rules. As the briefing note indicates, back in 1995, there was a problem over the reprinting of a joint committee report. That led to the working group, of which Senator Gauthier and former Senator Grimard were members. The idea was to develop a common set of procedural rules for joint committees. While those proposed rules did not cover everything, they would have at least provided a starting point. That work was completed in the late 1990s, and this committee included a set of common rules in its eighth report in 1999. There were still four or five outstanding issues. Some of those disagreements were minor and some were more significant or philosophical in nature.
Reopening the issue now with the House of Commons staff might be appropriate. The Senate clerks have pointed out some issues that have arisen since this report was adopted in 1999 — either issues that were not problems then or others that have become problems. There have also been some changes. For instance, this committee has looked at the summoning of witnesses over the last few months. If its report on that issue is dealt with, it would affect whether any rules adopted by the Senate for the summoning of witnesses would apply to joint committees.
Some of the existing joint committees have also encountered various difficulties, and perhaps those rules need to be reviewed in light of those experiences. It would be worthwhile to do this. I cannot honestly say whether the members of the House of Commons, as opposed to the staff, are interested in pursuing this. In fact, I am not sure that they are aware of, or have personal experience with, these issues, or even whether the members of their procedure committee are aware of them.
As you know, there are a number of parties in the other place that are not great supporters of joint committees generally, or of the Senate in particular. That has traditionally been a problem. It is worth having these rules reviewed and revised in light of recent experiences, and we can come back with a report and take it from there. It is entirely possible that this might provide another opportunity for a conference between the two chambers.
The Chairman: That is the right word — I am still working on this conference. Is it agreed, colleagues?
Senator Gauthier: Currently, there are three active joint committees. We still have reference in our rules to a joint parliamentary restaurant committee, which no longer exists. We are part of the problem rather than the solution right now, because we have given over many of our procedural rules. They run the joint committees on their rules most of the time. For instance, they will recognize the opposition first — the Alliance — never members of the Senate, whether Conservative or Liberal. They never have an opportunity to speak until after the members of Parliament of the other place have had their chance. It is an experience that some of you must try one day. I do not speak to this without experience because I have sat on five or six joint committees. We need a set of rules and I tried to establish one with Senator Grimard many years ago.
Mr. Robertson: That was about seven or eight years ago.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Peter Milliken was a member of that subcommittee, as was Ms Marlene Catterall. They agreed on the need and are in the other place today — Mr. Milliken is the Speaker and Ms Catterall is the whip. We have at least two people who understand what we are talking about.
We must present our case pretty strongly, so that it is understood that we will not take it any more. If they want to have joint committees with us, fine, but we will play according to a set of rules on which we both agree, not according to their rules only. It is extremely difficult to get your point across when you are fifth, six or seventh on the list. Sometimes, you have only two minutes, and at best, you may occasionally have five or seven minutes. That is why there is no interest in joint committees. Why should you prepare for three days for a meeting that is held on a Monday, only to discover when you arrive that you are seventh or eighth on the list, after the Alliance, the Conservatives and the NDP? It does not make any sense.
If we are to pursue this, let's go in there with a strong hand and not with cap in hand. If they do not want joint committees, they should be abolished.
Senator Joyal: I have had the experience of chairing a joint committee. When we had to draw up a speaking order and allocate the time, I always alternated between one from the House and one from the Senate. If we extended the intervention from the Senate members of the committee we would of course do the same with the members of the House. It was very clear from the beginning that was the way the joint committee was supposed to function. By their nature, joint committees mean equal Houses.
Defining the rules should be the starting principle. Mr. Chairman, you were a member of that committee. That was a cornerstone principle for the proper functioning of the committee. It went very well and we never had any problems, even though we sat for more than 300 hours.
Senator Bryden: I just want to make a comment. I sit on a joint committee, on the scrutiny of regulations. I did not know we had a problem. That may be because I am not polite enough to wait my turn. When I am prepared and we have received a stack of items like this, I never find that I have any difficulty at all in having as much to say about what is in that file as anybody else sitting around the table. I am recognized by the chair and the co-chairs, and I think I play a significant role on that particular committee.
Senator Gauthier: I agree with that, because joint committees are administrative, not legislative committees. This is where the confusion arises. A joint committee cannot study legislation that has not been approved by both Houses at second reading.
Sometimes, legislation is responsible for the problems. They try to get involved in it. I had Bill S-32 before the Senate for eight months. They are just now starting to look at the subject matter in that place. They called in 14 witnesses over a period of two days and gave them 5 minutes each — people from the North, the West and the East. People from New Brunswick said it took them more time to get through security than they were allowed before the committee. It was a real farce. Let us make it clear: There are no legislative responsibilities for joint committees.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: Does the principle of a joint committee not run counter to our parliamentary system in which the two chambers are completely autonomous and follow established procedures for running their respective committees or examining legislation?
[English]
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier put the correct categories together. The first, such as with regulatory instruments, is a supervisory and review function the two Houses can do together. The second is the study of policy issues — the principles of a bill or a joint policy study. Senator Joyal co-chaired one on the Constitution in 1980-81, where we examined a resolution for six months. Those things can be done.
The third category, legislation, is not amenable because we are separate legislative entities.
We will ask our clerk and his team to open discussions on our behalf with their counterparts in the House of Commons to examine the issues already on the table, plus any others that they think have arisen in the meantime, and bring us any sense of interest that the House side may have in proceeding.
If there is interest, stage two will be Senator Stratton and I having a discussion with our opposite numbers in the House of Commons. This has taken place in the past with respect to Royal Assent, where Senator Lynch-Staunton and I had a meeting with then Deputy Speaker Peter Milliken and representatives of the other parties to talk about what the House would want. That was informal. We may make that decision about whether we wish to push forward on this once we have had the report. Thank you for today's discussion.
Senator Gauthier: Do you know what is to be discussed at the dinner on Monday night with the Ontario legislature?
The Chairman: Ms Lank, do you know?
Dr. Heather Lank, Clerk of the Committee: I know I am meeting before your dinner with them to talk about committees. They are interested in committee work in terms of mandates, procedures, rules and differences between Senate and House committees.
Senator Di Nino: Are these members or bureaucrats?
Dr. Lank: They are members accompanied by a clerk. It is essentially a political body.
Senator Di Nino: Do you have an idea of the number of people attending?
Dr. Lank: I will make sure Mr. O'Brien gets that information to you.
The Chairman: I invite any members of the committee who are available on Monday night for dinner to join the discussion. I will meet with officials of this committee on whatever discussion Ontario wants to have. Senator Gauthier, are you available on Monday night?
Senator Gauthier: I must have my realtime stenotypist with me. Which room will it be in?
Dr. Lank: I will find out.
The Chairman: We will let you know.
The committee adjourned.