Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence, October 19, 2004
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 19, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 5 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English ]
Mr. François Michaud, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, we have a quorum.
As clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair, and I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Di Nino: I am happy to move that Senator Stollery be the chair of this committee.
Mr. Michaud: Are there other nominations?
[Translation ]
Senator Prud'homme: On principle, I would like to nominate Senator Downe for the position of Committee Chair. I believe I am within my rights to do so.
[English ]
Senator Downe: You can propose, but I decline.
Senator Prud'homme: You did not hear. I have the right to propose.
Senator Downe: Of course, and I am supporting the nominee.
[Translation ]
Mr. Michaud: Are there any other nominations?
Senator Prud'homme: I would like to address the Senate on a procedural matter. As you know, I am planning to recommend that chairs be elected by secret ballot, somewhat in keeping with the practice at the House of Commons. As you may also know, the Rules of the Senate make no provision for holding secret ballots. I have read the rules carefully and senior Senate officials know that we cannot request a secret vote. Therefore, I will ask the questions and give you the answers, to facilitate your job as clerk.
You will tell me that this practice is non-existent, that there is no such provision in the Rules of the Senate and that this is a matter for the Rules, Procedures and Rights of Parliament Committee, if we want to vote on this question one day.
I believe there are no further nominations. Consequently, I ask that you proceed with a roll call vote on the nomination of the Honourable Senator Stollery for the position of Chair.
Mr. Michaud: I will first call the question on Senator Di Nino's motion. If necessary, I will then call the question on Senator Prud'homme's motion.
The Honourable Senator Di Nino moves that the Honourable Senator Stollery be Chair. Is it the pleasure of honourable senators to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator De Bané: I second the motion.
Senator Prud'homme: I request a recorded division.
Mr. Michaud: I will therefore proceed with a roll call vote. The Honourable Senator Corbin?
Senator Corbin: Yea.
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator De Bané?
Senator De Bané: Yea.
[English ]
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Di Nino?
Senator Di Nino: Yes.
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: For the motion.
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Mahovlich?
[Translation ]
Senator Mahovlich: Yea.
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Prud'homme?
Senator Prud'homme: Yea.
[English ]
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Stollery?
Senator Stollery: For the motion.
[Translation ]
Mr. Michaud: Yeas: 7; nays: 0; abstentions: none. I declare the Honourable Senator Stollery elected Chairman.
[English ]
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the chair.
The Chairman: I would most sincerely thank my colleagues for supporting me and for the work that many have done on this committee.
We have some business to do.
I move that Senator Di Nino be the deputy chair.
All in favour?
[Translation ]
Senator Prud'homme: I do not wish to nominate anyone. I would, however, request a recorded division.
Mr. Michaud: I will therefore proceed with a roll call vote. The Honourable Senator Corbin?
Senator Corbin: I vote yea.
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator De Bané?
Senator De Bané: Yea.
[English ]
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Di Nino?
Senator Di Nino: With humility.
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: For the motion.
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Mahovlich?
[Translation ]
Senator Mahovlich: Yea.
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Prud'homme?
Senator Prud'homme: Yea.
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: If I understand correctly, I am obliged to vote either yea or nay. Correct?
Mr. Michaud: You can choose to abstain.
Senator Robichaud: I vote yea.
Mr. Michaud: The Honourable Senator Stollery?
Senator Stollery: Yea.
Mr. Michaud: Yeas: 8; nays: 0; abstentions: none.
[English ]
The Chairman: The next item deals with the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. I move that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and Senator Corbin, and that the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee and to invite witnesses and schedule meetings.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion No. 4 is to print the committee's proceedings.
Senator Di Nino: I so move.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Di Nino that the committee print its proceedings and that the chair be authorized to set the number to meet demand.
Motion No. 5 deals with the authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when a quorum is not present.
Senator Di Nino: So moved.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Di Nino.
The motion reads that, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
[Translation ]
Senator Prud'homme: I understand that you want to move quickly. However, the reference to ``pursuant to Rule 89'' in the case of quorum must be taken to mean in as much as one committee member from the government side, and one from the opposition side, are present.
[English ]
— and the opposition.
[Translation ]
Senator Prud'homme: What does this mean?
[English ]
The Chairman: We can hold meetings when a quorum is not present —
Senator Prud'homme: I know.
The Chairman: — provided that a member from both the government and the opposition be present.
Senator Prud'homme: I would amend this, and I am sure you will feel safer. If you say ``opposition,'' I could be there and be in favour of the view taken by the opposition. I think it would be fair to say ``the official opposition.''
The Chairman: All right, ``the official opposition.'' Fair enough.
Senator Prud'homme: It would be clear that there must be a Conservative. Even though I would like to leave it there and not be a pain, I am so pleased, after 11 years, to at long last be a member, after waiting patiently.
The Chairman: Your amendment is accepted by the committee, if I read the sense correctly.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Corbin: I always understood it to mean the official opposition.
The Chairman: On to motion number 6, that the committee adopt the draft first report prepared in accordance with rule 104.
Senator Corbin: I so move.
The Chairman: Thank you. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Prud'homme: Mr. Chairman, please, for the last session?
The Chairman: I cannot understand this one myself.
Senator Prud'homme: If you cannot understand it, you can imagine that it is difficult for me to do.
Senator Di Nino: It is the last session. It is a standard report that all committees make.
Senator Corbin: It is provided for under the rules. You have 15 days from the beginning of the session to do this.
Senator Prud'homme: It is for past expenses?
I think that haste and precipitation is not good orderly fashion. At least we know what this is all about. It is not a future budget but a past budget.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Prud'homme. May we move on?
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We agree.
Motion No. 7 deals with research staff. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich that the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research analysts to the committee; that the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it; that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and that the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
We now move to motion No. 8, which is authority to commit funds and certify accounts.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Prud'homme that, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act and section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and that pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act, and section 8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate administrative rules, authority for —
Senator De Bané: Dispense.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Senator Corbin: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?
I had to face this motion in the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. Since when is this authority given to one person only? It seems to me to be a prudent practice to have two signatures on anything, the clerk's and that of either the chair or the deputy chair.
[Translation ]
Mr. Michaud: The meaning was spelled out clearly in the Senate Administrative Rules adopted during the last session. I can circulate a copy of the rules if you wish.
[English ]
Senator Corbin: What does this say? It says the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee, and that it be conferred individually. Any one of you three can sign.
Senator Eyton: It says any one.
Senator Corbin: It does not require two persons to sign.
Senator Grafstein: On every committee that I have been on for 20 years, our practice has always been that no chairman signs off on anything without having the clerk sign off. I cannot remember a time on any committee where you received a financial document that the clerk did not sign off on.
Has that not been the practice?
Senator Prud'homme: Mr. Chairman, you said that I proposed it. I am not well. As a result, I am still functioning on No. 9. With respect to No. 8, take my name off that. I am sure someone will put a name forward.
I would like to listen to the explanation of an able — I do not know what to call him any more — half member of this committee now that he is chairman of the Banking Committee. We will miss him. How will he enlighten us on the committee?
The Chairman: Order, Senator Prud'homme. We want to deal with the agenda.
Senator Prud'homme: On the agenda, I withdraw my name as mover of this motion.
The Chairman: Then Senator Downe will move it.
Senator Di Nino: What I read here is what the clerk has put in, in accordance with the rules. However, I think your comment has some validity. If the rules specify this, and this is what the clerk has put in, should we change it?
The Chairman: How did you deal with it, Senator Corbin, in your committee?
Senator Corbin: I would like to understand the meaning of it. To me, the word ``individually'' has an obvious meaning. It is one person only.
Senator Eyton: Essentially, it says ``any one of.''
Senator Corbin: Traditionally, the clerk has always countersigned these things.
Senator Grafstein: Or prepared them.
Senator Corbin: This is to protect individuals against Enron situations, or call them what you want.
The Chairman: If you want to change it, it does not bother me. It is just that I would not want the change to bounce back on us. My assumption is that, when this was done in the past, it had been thought through. I do not mind.
Senator Corbin: I am ready to let this go. I do not intend to block it.
Could we ask our clerk to go back in history and find out when this rule came into being, and what the rule was before that?
Mr. Michaud: I can tell you right away that, in the past, for this committee, we used to give that authority to the chair, or the deputy chair and the clerk.
Senator Grafstein: The clerk.
Mr. Michaud: Yes, that was the practice.
The Chairman: As I see it, it is the chair and the clerk, or the deputy chair and the clerk. The words ``and the clerk'' are in the motion, are they not?
Senator Prud'homme: No. I have that, but I am not a member of any committee except the Banking Committee. I think you are getting to what would be acceptable to the people, that is, the chair and the clerk, or the deputy chair and the clerk.
The Chairman: That is what it says.
Senator Prud'homme: The way it is written there and understood by some colleagues around the table, including me, is that it would mean that you alone, the clerk alone or Senator Di Nino alone could sign. That is the how I read it in French.
[Translation ]
The Chairman: The French version of the motion refers to « et au greffier », « au vice-président et au greffier » or « au président et au greffier ».
[English ]
We will ask the clerk to look into this.
Senator Eyton?
Senator Eyton: Would it not be a simple matter to just delete the first comma, and put ``or''; so it would be, ``the chair or the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee.''
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: That is good.
Senator Di Nino: I have no problem with that except if the rules call for this.
The Chairman: That is always my position.
Senator Di Nino: We should clarify it. Let's do it that way. If we are wrong, then we will undo it.
The Chairman: We will undo it.
Senator Prud'homme: Why do you not suspend and then, at the next meeting, just quickly pass it?
The Chairman: We have to do this.
Senator Corbin: We should ask the Rules Committee to clean up their act and put it in plain English.
Senator Di Nino: Individually on the chair or the deputy chair and the clerk.
Do we want the second paragraph also to read like that? For certifying accounts payable do we need two people to sign? I think one is would be in order in that instance.
Senator Corbin: Committing funds is something else.
Senator Di Nino: I agree.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The next motion is No. 9 which deals with travel. Senator Prud'homme, did you want to have your name attached to this motion?
Senator Prud'homme: Yes, if I can be given an explanation in response to my next comments. When I attended committee meetings, I found it detestable to discover that certain members had been dispatched to other duties without the knowledge of all of the committee members. They would hear about it after members had been sent away. The authority was that which had been given to the subcommittee. Do you understand what I mean? Am I clear?
The Chairman: My argument on that one —
Senator Grafstein: What is the argument? I don't understand.
The Chairman: Senator Prud'homme can make his own point.
Senator Prud'homme: No, you understood my point.
The Chairman: Yes. I guess it could happen that people go on trips under the authority of the subcommittee. This committee has never gone in for that sort of thing.
Let me put it in the contrary sense, and I feel quite strongly about this. I think it would be unwise in this committee if, every time a member had to travel somewhere on behalf of the committee, that the matter would have to be brought before the full committee. That, it would seem to me, would be a mistake.
The committee has, after all, chosen the steering committee. It cannot be done without the authority of the steering committee.
The steering committee authorizes travel that is required on behalf of the committee. Senator Prud'homme, I must say that I support this motion. If we do not support it we will be putting the steering committee in a spot. It is not meant for you to find that someone has gone off on a trip that does not fall within the terms of reference of the committee. I think that is what you are saying.
Senator Prud'homme: I will most likely not travel at all, so I am personally not interested in this. I found it detestable in the Banking Committee when the subcommittee decided that A, B, C from one party and X, Y, Z from another party would travel to study the Banking Committee in Europe. I was totally unaware of what was going on. Had I been aware, I would have been in total agreement. I found that highly detestable and unfair to members who were totally unaware of what was going on. It did happen in the Banking Committee. I would not wish this to happen here. It is as simple as that.
The Chairman: I understand your point. When we finish with these standard motions, I have two other motions. One of them is to reintroduce a policy from the last Parliament where we had the potential of attending certain conferences. We cannot send all of the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee to a conference. You go to them, Senator Grafstein. This is to facilitate the job of the chairman and the steering committee. You have to entrust us with a certain amount of judgment.
Senator Grafstein: I agree with the thrust of what Senator Prud'homme is saying. If people are selected, the decision taken by the committee or the steering committee should be transparent and they have to account for their judgment. I have tried to adopt the policy of always coming back with a report when travelling offshore.
The Chairman: That is a good idea.
Senator Grafstein: I cannot remember a time in the last decade at least where I went somewhere and did not come back and do two things: make a report to the group on whose behalf I was attending, and in addition put it in writing and many times circulate it widely.
My point, Mr. Chairman, is advisory because it might not fit it, but if a member goes to a conference — and it is important that Canada be represented at these conferences and either speak or not speak — that member owes a duty to the members and the public to say where he or she went, and tell what he or she learned. That could be done by a one-, two-, or three-page report. At Canada-U.S. at various times we are asked to send people to meetings. As the co- chair, I have no trouble doing that provided that the person comes back and provides a written report.
I mention that not by way of proposing an amendment to that resolution but as a suggestion. For instance, if Senator Prud'homme decided to go to a conference on behalf of this committee, we should find out what he was doing there and receive a report.
The Chairman: Particularly if we are paying for it.
Senator Grafstein: Exactly. If it is out of his own budget that is his business, but if it is this committee's budget, the committee has a responsibility to itself and to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to at least know that members are accountable. To my mind that is the simplest and fairest way of doing it.
Senator Downe: I support the motion. I agree with the authority being with the subcommittee, but I have a question as a new member of this committee: What is the tradition? Do you notify all the committee members when members of this committee travel?
The Chairman: We travel very infrequently. Everyone thinks that we are the big travelling committee. I went to a WTO conference at Wilton Park regarding multilateral trade negotiations. I sent papers to everybody. In fact, on this occasion I paid for the trip myself and I would like to be reimbursed.
The committee has travelled as a committee generally. When we go to Washington we go as a committee. When we were in Mexico we went as a committee. It is certainly a practical solution for us. I would like Senator Di Nino to go to a conference on China. That is my idea; it is not his idea. He has expressed an interest in the subject. It is no secret. However, travelling by members of this committee on committee business is rare. It has occurred only a couple of times. The subject has not come up. We do not want to turn this into a travel agency.
Senator Downe: At the same time, there is transparency in this committee.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: I have been on the committee for several years now. The practice has been that these kinds of decisions — other than the occasional conference, and it has been rare, as the chairman says — are discussed and information is divulged at the committee level. I agree with Senator Prud'homme that it would be objectionable to find out that members had been chosen to travel on committee business without the whole committee knowing about it. I do not think that is appropriate, and I would support view.
I do not think we need to make a motion or change the resolution. However, as a question of practice, we are limited in terms of the number of people who can travel. Not everyone can go. Someone will have to make decisions, but the matter should at least be brought to the committee for information.
[Translation ]
Senator Robichaud: With respect to motions 8, 9 and 10 which confer a certain amount of authority on the steering committee, how does this committee usually report back to the main committee? Does it report back at a subsequent meeting?
When we learn that someone has gone on a trip of some kind, like Senator Prud'homme, I too would like to know who that person was. I totally concur with Senator Grafstein's suggestion that a report be drawn up for the benefit of the other members. Regarding motion 10, other committee members need to be made aware of who has been designated to travel on committee business. I realize that we are not examining this issue, but it is all relevant to motions 8, 9 and 10.
The Chairman: As Senator Di Nino was saying, this may have happened twice in the past. As a rule, the committee meets on Tuesdays. That is no secret. Besides, motion 8 has already been endorsed by the committee. I really have nothing more to add to what Senator Di Nino was saying.
[English ]
We are starting the practice of attending certain conferences. We have never done this before. I completely agree that there should be a report and that any papers collected on the trip should be distributed. There is no question about that. I am not certain that there is any real controversy because it rarely happens.
Senator Grafstein: Question.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Item No. 10 deals with the subcommittee on agenda and procedure —
Senator Di Nino: I so move.
Senator Prud'homme: Explain.
The Chairman: I have not even read it.
Senator Prud'homme: Mr. Chairman, you asked for a mover and I would also say that I have not read it. Read it, please, and I will ask questions.
The Chairman: Senator, go ahead and ask the question.
Senator Prud'homme: If you read it you will understand what I mean.
The Chairman: Go ahead.
Senator Prud'homme: I sat on other committees with Senator Robichaud and others. We had such a long debate on the question of attendance and presence. This would be of interest to you as a new member in Parliament. In the past, it was detestable that senators would use the words ``official business'' because, according to Part 2, they only needed to say that they talked about the work of the committee to be considered present when Senate attendance was published each day. Therefore, a big burden is being placed on the shoulders of some sucker to be present in the Senate to have a quorum while others need only say that they spoke to matters pertaining to a committee to be deemed present. According to the rules, they can do that. You can just imagine how many times I can do that if I want without being paid. I am not talking about money now, that the committee would pay me to go to universities, panels and all that. It is related.
The clerk of the committee will tell me if I am wrong in my understanding of the rules. It pertains to the publication of being present or absent for official business. Senator Di Nino, who has long experience on this committee, will kindly explain.
Senator Di Nino: I will deal with it in two ways and one is a general comment that you made. I agree with you that sometimes the rule is not used properly. However, it is the right of every senator — that is the kind of institution we have — to make that decision on his or her behalf. That is the right. This issue pertains to doing something on behalf of a committee. If a senator is acting on behalf of the committee, the subcommittee is then authorized to say that is the case. The subcommittee has to have at least one member of the government and one member of the official opposition. The subcommittee can say that Senator Prud'homme, for example, is in Vancouver on official business because he is doing something on behalf of the committee. That is a good way of doing it. It strengthens, in effect, that you, as an independent, do not need that because you can go on your own.
Senator Prud'homme: That is right; so why is it in there?
Senator Di Nino: I do not know, but I think it is good in the sense that, if there is any question on that particular trip, there is at least a back up that says the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Foreign Affairs Committee reviewed my request to be in Omemee, Ontario, to speak to a high school about this issue that deals with matters pertaining to the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is an extra step that adds some value. I criticize the other but it is a right that we have as senators.
The Chairman: May I add, Senator Prud'homme, that in my years of experience here, it has only happened twice that I remember. There was a case of someone who said to the steering committee that they were at a conference in Vancouver and wondered whether it would be counted. Senator Di Nino, Senator Corbin and I agreed but we could have not agreed. It happens so infrequently. As Senator Di Nino points out, it has to be approved by the steering committee. That is why we have the steering committee.
[Translation ]
Senator Robichaud: If the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure makes a decision, it has a duty to inform members to keep them abreast of the situation. However, is this standard procedure? Do we simply assume that that will be the case, once we have adopted the motion?
[English ]
The Chairman: It is a standard motion for setting up committees. We are going through the standard procedure.
[Translation ]
Senator Robichaud: I have no problem with the motions before the committee. However, decisions are made by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure and all I am asking is for the main committee to be informed once a decision has been reached. There is no mention made of this anywhere.
[English ]
Senator Corbin: I do not know how this provision has managed to trickle down to the committee level. Already there is a provision in the Rules of the Senate. This is about preservation and not unduly taxing the 21 allotted days of absence from the Senate per session. That is what this is all about. I do not want to police the actions of my colleagues.
Senator Prud'homme: Exactly.
Senator Corbin: The practice has been such that, if you are absent from the Senate for a good cause, you file a letter. You write to the clerk to demonstrate that you may have had, for example, an invitation to speak to kindergarten group No. 9 in Vancouver. You file that with the clerk and it is then considered official Senate business and they do not tax your 21 days of absence.
I cannot envision the steering committee having to police senators.
The Chairman: That is not the point.
Senator Corbin: I have other things to do on this committee.
Senator Mahovlich: It is as if someone throws a monkey wrench into it.
The Chairman: It has happened twice. Someone went to a conference and there was a registration fee, et cetera. This kind of thing happens rarely.
Senator Prud'homme: Could you explain this? If fees are involved could the subcommittee decide to pay them?
Senator Di Nino: Yes, of course.
Senator Prud'homme: Is that because the person is speaking at the conference? The more we question, the more interesting it becomes. I will say one thing: the more we question, the more I realize that part should be suspended. To be frank, Senator Corbin has just barely touched upon the issue.
Let us say that I am invited, or Senator Grafstein is invited, to a controversial conference in British Columbia. For assurance, he asks the subcommittee. There is no fee. He goes to Vancouver on his 64 points and, as Senator Corbin said, he files with the clerk that he was in Vancouver so that he will not lose any of his 21 days per session. You never know how long a session might be — and it is per session, not per year. The session could be three years. You go to the conference, you file with the clerk and everything is in order.
Let us say that, for the sake of prestige or something, someone begged the committee to allow attendance at a conference. God knows all of you on the committee are invited from time to time because this is a prestigious committee. If you are not invited, then there must be something wrong with the committee, in my view. This committee should be the most glamorous, and I have said that for 10 years. For 40 years I have been saying that the Foreign Affairs Committee is the one that gives light to parliamentarians.
If, in your wisdom, two or three of you decide not to authorize conference attendance then the senator will simply use the other rule and still go. However, that might put him in an embarrassing situation. I was turned down by my own colleague who exercised veto. Is that resolution, in your estimation and experience, that necessary?
For 17 years on the other side I was a chairman of Foreign Affairs and National Defence. That was tough, I tell you. As soon as I see ambiguities such as these, I see people ill at ease. It was not that important and so we took it out or we negotiated.
I ask the clerk again: Is this item essential to the work of this committee? No, look at me; do not look at the chairman. I am asking you a question.
Senator Grafstein: It is standard.
Mr. Michaud: It has been standard practice since 1998.
Senator Grafstein: First of all, I think we owe Senator Corbin a debt because he was precise.
We are distorting ourselves because of a distortion. The distortion was that, when we went to the position of attendance, all of a sudden we were setting up rules to deal with rules to deal with rules. Quite frankly, I was never in favour of attendance in the same way. The other House does not have attendance.
Senator Prud'homme: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: We have attendance, and they do not have attendance. People look at our attendance. I can say comfortably for 99 per cent of my colleagues that they work more than the three days a week that they are paid for here, many times, every week. I know Senator Di Nino does in Toronto. I know that Senator Mahovlich is all over the country, presenting himself as a senator on behalf of this institution.
As opposed to being restrictive here, I think it is a question of trust and confidence. For instance, when I look at this, I say this is too restrictive as opposed to being restrictive. Why? Because it says you have to consider a member to be on official business related to the work of the committee or making a presentation related to the work of the committee.
We are not yet looking at China. I do not think that will be in the next year. However, if Senator Di Nino were to go and represent us and come back and report on China, that would be most relevant and useful.
Senator Di Nino: I am not going to China.
Senator Grafstein: It may well be the subject matter of a future study.
The Chairman: That is what I say.
Senator Grafstein: I will give you another example. We are not presently studying a free trade agreement with the Americans. We are not. It is not part of the official work of this committee. However, if Senator Eyton decides he wants to go to Brazil, where he is an expert, or to Mexico to talk about the extension of our trade to South America and bring back a report, I would welcome that. I think that would enhance, as Senator Prud'homme says, the substance of this committee.
To my mind, this should be looked at in liberal terms by the steering committee. I am prepared to rely on the steering committee. All I want from anyone who travels on issues dealing with foreign affairs or dealing with the future policy of Canada is to give us a report. I hope that the steering committee will not look at this strictly. I would like a liberal interpretation, and that may mean the present or future work of the committee. I quite frankly do not like restrictive responsibilities.
It is not a question of receiving money for that; it is a question of getting your out-of-pocket expenses. I can tell you there has not been a trip that Senator Di Nino and I have gone on — or you, senator — where it has not cost us money out of our own pockets. If people say somehow we are ripping off the public purse, I am prepared to defend each and every trip, each and every time, and show the public that it costs me money each time I go because the stipend received is inadequate to provide a reasonable standard for the attendances of these meetings.
The Chairman: We are the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Senator Grafstein: Let me give you an example. The Senate of the United States has two very powerful committees, the foreign affairs committee and the intelligence committee. If you are a member of the intelligence committee, you have no accountability. You can go at any time, at any place, and you do not have to account to anybody where you go. The foreign affairs committee is not quite as liberal, but very, very liberal, and they go with staff. At the end of the day, when we are adopting this, I hope that the steering committee does not construe this strictly but liberally.
The Chairman: We are pretty reasonable.
Senator Di Nino: I am finding the discussion useful in many ways, but I think we are extending it to a degree that we do not really have to. It does not increase the 21 days. It is the same number. It does not mean that you are going officially; it could be unofficially. What this is really doing is, in my opinion, giving an opinion to an individual, as Senator Grafstein said, who would like to undertake a trip somewhere, whether it is for one day or more than one day. Remember that we are not talking about money, because that has to be approved previously.
One of my colleagues wanted to attend a particular conference that related to softwood lumber, an area that we have been studying, and would be missing from the Senate. My colleague asked, ``Would I be on official business?'' It does not have to be. You still have 21 days. We have that authority as individual senators. The fact that the person came to us and asked was a good thing, and was in effect asking, ``Am I doing the right thing?'' However, I repeat that it does not confer any additional days. It does not confer any additional benefits. We discussed it. We said that we believed that the right thing was being done, as long as a report was provided. I agree totally about providing a report. We got a report, although it was not specified. This is the point. I do not understand this discussion, because we have the authority as individual senators to make that decision on our own. We may want an opinion from the committee as to whether it relates to committee business. However, I do not think it adds a great deal.
Senator Mahovlich: Senator Prud'homme brought up a point. Why does Foreign Affairs not take more trips? I have been on this committee for years and I believe there was only one trip.
The Chairman: We are obviously trying to get the budget.
Senator Mahovlich: We are arguing about going here and going there, but there is no place to go.
The Chairman: We never go anywhere.
Senator Mahovlich: Can you give me an answer?
The Chairman: Could we move on? Could we get this done?
Senator Corbin: I have just one comment. The steering committee will be asked to determine number one and to consider number two. What happens then? Is a report filed to somebody? Why do we do this?
The Chairman: The report is filed with the clerk, and it goes to the clerk upstairs.
Senator Corbin: That is not indicated.
The Chairman: Senator Corbin, you know this certainly as well as I do.
Senator Corbin: I do not, because things are done behind closed doors and we are not informed. I do not know.
The Chairman: I think that this motion and several of these motions are motions that the Rules Committee has come up with.
Senator Corbin: They are not the Ten Commandments.
[Translation ]
Senator Robichaud: My understanding of the second part of this motion is that if I travel on committee business, I submit a record of my expenses and these will be reimbursed by the committee.
[English ]
The Chairman: It has to be approved by the committee. Five cents has to be approved before it is spent. You cannot spend any money without the approval of the committee if you want to get reimbursed.
Senator Robichaud: I know that, but if you have approved it as an official engagement, then I will claim an expense.
Senator Corbin: Is that what the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998 state? Does it state that you can claim expenses? Are not you pushing that a little too far?
Senator Robichaud: No, no, that is the first part, Senator Corbin. The second part is official business in the name of the committee. I am not going to push it. I only want to be informed. When these motions are put forward, I would like to be informed. It is just a matter of transparency so that whenever somebody points out that a member is away on committee business I can say, ``Yes, I am aware that he is gone, and I agree with it.''
The Chairman: I think you are making an assumption that we will go somewhere, but so far we have not gone anywhere. We have not gone anywhere for years.
Senator Robichaud: Then we do not need this motion.
The Chairman: I think we do, because I suspect the Rules Committee has suggested that we put this motion in the terms of reference of the committee.
Senator Prud'homme: I am sorry.
The Chairman: Senator Prud'homme, are you going to vote against this motion?
Senator Prud'homme: Do not prejudge. Is it a closed shop or is the matter debatable?
The Chairman: It certainly is not a closed shop.
Senator Prud'homme: When we start on the right footing, then we will have two harmonious years in a row, or three, or 18 months, or a year. I do not know.
Senator Robichaud: Four years.
Senator Prud'homme: As I read that, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure will be authorized to consider any member of the committee to be on official business if that member is attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee.
If the subcommittee, decides that this was not official business, and I write to the clerk and state that I was on official business, who gets the best of the deal? If I am invited to attend, then why should I report? I may not; I may. People such as Mr. Aubrey and others could say, ``He went to every conference, university and what have you,'' but some reason the subcommittee may decide that it was not official business even though someone, Senator Mahovlich or others, could be attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee.
Why should I be less on official business if I speak at a university on the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee? I am not officially delegated. I have my own view.
The Chairman: It is —
Senator Prud'homme: Just a minute. I have my own views. You say the subcommittee could authorize a member to speak on behalf of the committee. I may not agree. There are very few things I disagree with, Senator Di Nino, but some I disagree with profoundly. I am a one-China man and I am a Trudeauist, pure and simple. I know some people prefer Taiwan. However, if a member were authorized by the subcommittee to go abroad, I would defend that in the house. Senator Carstairs was very happy to know that I would stand up. It was very embarrassing for me.
A member cannot go to a conference and expect to be backed up unless we all agree that he is speaking on behalf of the committee. The way it is interpreted over there, it is as if the committee sent someone to speak on its behalf. Senator Di Nino some day may be happy that I speak like that in case one of us goes on a committee and pretends to be on official business. The word ``official business'' has been put on our own shoulders as well as the responsibility to tell the clerk, ``I have decided I was on official business and it is nobody else's business. Check if you want.'' I do it. I still have my 21 days since I arrived in 1993, because I am never absent. The three times I have travelled were considered to be on official business because everybody knew about those.
I beg of you — not beg, although I hear it is good English — I respectfully submit that you could function very well without motion No. 10. In any case, I will vote against it. I will ask for a registered vote, because I am sure it will come back to haunt us in the next few years.
The Chairman: We had better have a registered vote. Could I have a mover of the motion?
Senator Corbin: Before you do, I do not think we should have official business, in quotation marks. That does not mean a damn thing. It used to be public business. What do words mean these days?
As a member of the steering committee, Mr. Chair, I tell you I will be very uncomfortable with this. Maybe you will have to get somebody else if you call on me to pronounce judgment on my colleagues and their activities.
The Chairman: We have never done it.
Senator Prud'homme: If you have never done it, why do you not withdraw it?
The Chairman: If you do not want to put it in, I do not care.
It is moved by Senator Grafstein. All in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Senator Prud'homme: Of what?
Senator Corbin: Could I abstain?
The Chairman: Abstention from Senator Corbin.
Senator Prud'homme: I am against, and I want my vote to be registered in the minutes as having been against.
Senator Grafstein: Count the votes.
The Chairman: Call the vote.
Mr. Michaud: Honourable Senator Corbin.
Senator Corbin: Abstain.
Mr. Michaud: Honourable Senator Di Nino.
Senator Di Nino: Yes.
Mr. Michaud: Honourable Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: For the motion.
Mr. Michaud: Honourable Senator Eyton.
Senator Eyton: For.
Mr. Michaud: Honourable Senator Grafstein.
Senator Grafstein: For.
Mr. Michaud: Honourable Senator Mahovlich.
Senator Mahovlich: For.
Mr. Michaud: Honourable Senator Prud'homme.
Senator Prud'homme: Against.
Mr. Michaud: Honourable Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud: Abstain.
Mr. Michaud: Honourable Senator Stollery.
The Chairman: For.
Mr. Michaud: Yeas, 6; nays, 1; abstentions, 2.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The next item is motion No. 11 dealing with the travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Corbin that, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to provide expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Number 12 is the electronic media coverage of public meetings. It is moved by Senator Di Nino that the chair be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings, and that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.
It is moved by Senator Prud'homme. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 13 deals with the time slot for regular meetings. The time slot is Tuesdays when the Senate rises but not before 5 p.m. Is that correct?
Senator Di Nino: Absolutely.
The Chairman: It is also Wednesdays when the Senate rises, but not before 3:30 p.m. This is our traditional time. We do not need a motion for that.
Now we turn to other business.
Senator Prud'homme: To be helpful to you, I was always annoyed when only some people stay in the Senate to retain a quorum while others were sitting in committees. I am content with the wording, but at least consider another resolution for the future. On some Tuesdays I know that the witness was present and the committee would have like to have met before 5 p.m. I am not talking about Wednesdays. I am on the same wavelength as you are. On some Tuesdays the Senate adjourned at 4 p.m. or 4:30 p.m. and everybody was present, including the witness, and you wanted to start at 4:15 p.m.
The Chairman: I agree with you, Senator Prud'homme. In other words, there is no reason why we have to wait. I get the picture.
I have several items of future business.
Senator Robichaud, did you want to say something?
[Translation ]
Senator Robichaud: Regarding Senator Prud'homme's question, the motion does say ``when the Senate rises.'' If the Senate rises earlier, then the meeting can begin earlier.
The Chairman: The committee cannot meet while the Senate is sitting. However, if the Senate rises, our schedule becomes somewhat more flexible.
Senator Robichaud: For example, the motion stipulates ``not before 5 p.m.''
[English ]
Senator Grafstein: As I understand the rule, this schedule is for information only. At any time, if the committee decides to call a special meeting — and we have had this happen from time to time, where all of a sudden an outstanding foreign affairs personality comes and it is before five o'clock — you just put a motion and ask for leave of the Senate to waive the rules. We have done that once or twice in the past.
The Chairman: Senator Robichaud has been very helpful in that department.
Senator Grafstein: At the end of the day, this is just for information purposes.
The Chairman: This is just for the information of members.
Senator Corbin: It is a time slot imposed on us by whoever directs committees. Nothing prevents us from asking for other sittings at any time.
Senator Grafstein: Exactly.
The Chairman: I am not trying to rush you, but under the head of ``other business'' I have a matter on which I would seek your assistance.
Mr. Michaud: Should I distribute this?
The Chairman: You can distribute it. It is no secret. I discussed this with Senator Di Nino. I would like to have a motion that I can give notice of motion tomorrow to launch the work of the committee, that is, to seek terms of reference. If we have an order of reference, we can then go to Internal Economy. We have been throwing around a couple of ideas. Senator Robichaud will remember the motion that has been a standard one for years but which got shot down in the last session. The standard motion we use, which does not involve expenses or anything of substance, is that the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, in accordance with rule 86(1)(h), be authorized to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations generally. It is in front of you. It is a standard motion.
I have spoken with Senator Di Nino because Senator Kinsella opposed it in the last session. Do you remember, Senator Robichaud? We had a little kerfuffle.
If the committee would approve that, I could then work on it. It does not restrict us in any way. It would give me something to work on.
Senator Di Nino: It is a general order of reference. It is not specific.
Senator Prud'homme: Which one do you mean? The first one?
The Chairman: The second. You see there are two.
Senator Prud'homme: I have a lot of objections to the second one.
Senator Mahovlich: Which is the first one, and which is the second?
The Chairman: Which one is the senator talking about?
Senator Di Nino: The one we are talking about.
The Chairman: Is it the one that I just read?
Senator Di Nino: It is that Foreign Affairs Committee, in accordance with rule 86(1)(h), be authorized to examine such issues, et cetera.
Senator Prud'homme: I am happy with that for today.
The Chairman: With regard to the other one, we were just trying to find a way of doing it. The one that you have just agreed to is the sensible one.
Senator Downe, would you like to move that motion?
Senator Downe: I move the motion.
The Chairman: All in favour.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. That gives me something to work with.
Senator Prud'homme: Just a minute. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I have two pages.
The Chairman: I do not know what the other page is.
Senator Prud'homme: The second one is for another meeting.
The Chairman: No. Throw that out.
The second item I would like to put to the committee has to do with conferences. I am thinking of Senator Di Nino in this regard. As I have said, it would be very useful if Senator Di Nino could go to Wilton Park on China. There are a couple of ways of doing it. Senator Di Nino is very interested and it is a very important conference.
In the last Parliament, the committee unanimously approved a motion in our budget for five conferences. That does not mean that we have approved the money for the five conferences; it is just the principle of attending five conferences. If anyone wishes to attend one, it has to go to the committee and I have to go to internal economy for funds.
Do you have a copy of the motion?
Mr. Michaud: No.
Senator Di Nino: Let me just say that I do not think we should look at this on the basis that I may be interested.
The Chairman: No.
Senator Di Nino: What we should be talking about, Mr. Chairman, is whether we should be including in our budget a request for a sum of money which would allow members of the committee to go. If some valuable or some important conference is taking place somewhere that deals with the mandate of the committee, should we be requesting money for that eventuality? If it does happen, of course, it will be discussed. I think we should do that. It does give us a little flexibility.
The Chairman: That is all we are looking for.
Senator Di Nino: Whether I, the chair, Senator Grafstein or Senator Robichaud would go to one is not the issue we should be dealing with because we do not know when these conferences will be.
The Chairman: It is just in case we require funds.
Senator Di Nino: Out of respect, the chairman suggested that there may be one in which I may have an interest. I would have to find out where it is, when it is, whether I am available, and then I would decide whether I would have any interest in attending. That should not be basis of the discussion here.
The Chairman: I understand.
Senator Di Nino: Should we be including a request in our budget for conferences? I understand that other committees do that from time to time. I also understand that we had it last year, and we never used it once. Is that right?
The Chairman: We never used it.
Senator Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, I have given some thought about such a meeting that does not involve terms of reference but involves information for the committee. If you take a look at the order of reference, which talks about multilateral free trade agreements and so forth, it is interesting.
Senator Di Nino: No, no.
The Chairman: Go and get that back so there is no confusion.
Senator Grafstein: I want to set it up to talk about this. When you look at this, it is an outline of what the committee does. This is a general statement and these are the specific terms. If somebody wanted a mission statement for the committee, they would look at this.
Senator Prud'homme: I do not agree. There are many other issues.
Senator Grafstein: I am saying that, up until now, in recent times, these have been our terms of reference, to focus on trade and economic matters.
The Chairman: It is foreign affairs and foreign trade.
Senator Grafstein: Essentially, when the department split, there was an implicit understanding that human rights and political issues would be dealt with by the new committee on human rights, and, effectively, we would be dealing mostly with this. That was part of the general discussion that went back to when the department was split. You remember the department itself was split to deal separately with political issues and economic matters, and we have emphasized this, not to the exclusion of the other.
Mr. Chairman, I would like you and the committee to think about having a meeting with the Subcommittee on International Trade in Washington. I say that because, in some instances, the Americans are moving farther and faster than we are on the question of free trade. I will give you two examples that might be of interest to my colleague Senator Prud'homme. We do not have a free trade agreement, for instance, with Jordan; the Americans do. We do not have a free trade agreement with Morocco; the Americans do.
Senator Prud'homme: I am not interested.
Senator Grafstein: Excuse me. We are embarking, as they are, on expanding NAFTA, the whole argument of NAFTA-plus, which is South America. It would be very useful, I think, to members of this committee to have a meeting with the members of that subcommittee to exchange views, to determine their thinking. At the end of the day, whether one likes it or not, when America moves, they move. I think it would be informative to members of the committee to do that.
All I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman is that you consider that and plug that in, if you agree what it would entail. It would entail a one-day meeting in Washington — flying there and coming back the same day — if we can arrange it. It is very difficult to do this because it is hard to get them to agree. Mexico has done this quite consistently. They have had joint meetings of their committees, the foreign affairs committee and a number of other committees. We have not done this. The only person that has done this, and I commend him for it, is Senator Kenny, who has met with them informally. I ask you to add that as an agenda item.
The Chairman: That goes right in the record.
Senator Mahovlich: If you are going to get the viewpoint of the Americans, should you not go over to Morocco and get their viewpoint on trade?
The Chairman: I think that we have given this an airing. We are still working on the program, and I am not going to ask for a motion from the committee because, frankly, I do not have one drafted. I wanted to hear your opinions.
Senator Corbin: I am somewhat surprised that we are already engaged in this. Do you not think that it would have been preferable to ask the various members of the committee what they think our study ought to be? I am lost right now.
The Chairman: I understand that.
Senator Corbin: I do not understand this discussion.
The Chairman: Senator Corbin, let us keep our perspective.
Senator Corbin: There are serious problems in the world in which Canada should be involved. When will we look at those things? Trade is fine, but I have trade coming out of my ears.
The Chairman: Senator Corbin, maybe I can straighten this out. We have taken a little longer to complete the preliminaries of the committee, but the committee has now been launched. I thought that we might proceed with the steering committee, which has, after all, been approved by the committee, looking at where we think we are.
Senator Corbin: Even before that I think committee members ought to have a good opportunity to air their views.
The Chairman: We will talk to committee members, of course.
Senator Corbin: We should have a meeting with a free-rolling discussion.
Senator Grafstein: A brainstorming discussion.
The Chairman: That is what we are doing now, I guess.
Senator Robichaud: The meeting was not called for that purpose.
Senator Di Nino: This has gone on much longer than any other organizational meeting. It is, nonetheless, an organizational meeting. I believe the chair is saying that no decisions will be made without committee approval. I do not think we are that far advanced yet, frankly, Senator Corbin, and we generally would not do that in an organizational meeting.
Senator Corbin: We have been presented with these two papers. One was put to the side, but we still have requests to examine issues.
The Chairman: No. I do not know what that is.
Senator Di Nino: That is to create the committee so that the committee has a term of reference.
The Chairman: It is just a general term of reference.
Senator Di Nino: Nothing will be undertaken until the committee approves of it.
Senator Prud'homme: The second page was withdrawn.
The Chairman: This is taken straight out of the rule book.
Senator Corbin: This is the wording of the rules.
Mr. Michaud: Exactly.
Senator Corbin: In other words, the meeting is concluded.
The Chairman: We will hear Senator Prud'homme and then we will adjourn the meeting.
[Translation ]
Senator Prud'homme: I believe Senator Corbin has clearly grasped the notion of three or four senators. You have just said that the committee will meet, that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure will decide the agenda. However, Senator Corbin's motion is far more specific in nature.
[English ]
As Senator Di Nino said, we are having a brainstorming session, and that is exactly what we should be doing. Rather than the steering committee asking us to send them suggestions, we should discuss matters among ourselves.
You are an able chair and there are those who are really interested in foreign affairs. If there are some who are too busy or not interested, they should not be on the committee.
Before we start going in every direction, it would be nice of you to call a meeting solely for the purpose of deciding what we will study. You then put the phraseology together with your steering committee and introduce it in the Senate. We will not have a mandate if we do not agree here. We should at least have a basic exchange of views on what our mandate should be for the duration of this government.
In that sense, I fully back Senators Corbin and Robichaud, and I saw others nodding their heads in the affirmative, although that is not registered.
Do not do anything for a moment. You have a motion with which you are content. It is up to you, Mr. Chair, to call a meeting when you see fit to determine what kind of mandate the committee should have.
Since the time of Senator Van Roggen, this committee has studied free trade with the United States. As Senator Corbin said, there are other problems in the world, but Canada is moving further and further away from what the world is looking at. Where is Canada on certain hot issues?
I think a brainstorming session would be very interesting and enlightening.
The Chairman: Senator Prud'homme, I have no disagreement with you. This is the organizational meeting. We have organized. You are quite correct; I have a term of reference that can get us going. There was never any intent to, at this meeting, come up with the direction that the committee will take. We all agree. It has taken us a lot longer to get organized than usual, but that is fine.
I want to thank everyone for showing up.
The committee adjourned.