Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 3 - Evidence - Meeting of June 8, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 8, 2005
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:20 p.m. for clause- by-clause consideration of a draft report; and, pursuant to rule 86(f)(iii), for consideration of the use of laptops by senators in the chamber.
Senator David P. Smith (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, there are several items that we can discuss today, but the primary item is the clause-by-clause matter that was referred to us by Senator Banks. You should have before you a document entitled, "Fourth Report.'' Mr. Robertson worked on this. We will have him walk us through it briefly, then we will discuss it.
Mr. James R. Robertson, Principal, Law and Government Division, Parliamentary Information and Research Branch, Library of Parliament: This is a draft report based on the discussions of the committee yesterday morning. The first paragraph is the order of reference from the Senate resulting from Senator Banks' motion of May 31.
In the second paragraph, we indicate that the committee met with Mr. O'Brien and Ms. Lank yesterday.
In paragraph 3, there is a brief background as to how this issue arose, which was as a result of consideration of Bill C-15 by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and the point of order that was raised in the Senate following the tabling of the report and observations on that bill.
Paragraph 4 indicates that the committee has reviewed the procedures and practices of the Senate and other legislative bodies and says that it is the right of any senator to propose amendments to individual clauses or to insist on the formal procedure whereby each clause of the bill is considered separately. There are times when, for legitimate reasons, the members of the committee are prepared to modify this procedure, but that can only be done with agreement and consent of all members of the committee who are present.
Paragraph 5 indicates that the committee agrees with the principles underlying Senator Banks' proposal. Paragraph 6 indicates that there is a slight modification to the wording to clarify the situation, avoid ambiguity and achieve balance.
In the bold type at the end, on page 3, there is the recommendation to the Senate and the proposal that a new clause 7.1 be added to rule 96.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The English version of our recommendation says the following:
[English]
"Except with leave of its members present,'' and in the rules "leave of the Senate'' means "leave granted without a dissenting voice.''
[Translation]
The French version says: "À moins l'autorisation des membres présents.'' In my estimation, "autorisation'' is the equivalent of "leave of the Senate.'' The Rules refer to "permission du Sénat.''
Does "autorisation'' mean the same thing as "permission?''
Mr. O'Brien: The text reads: "À moins de la permission des members présents.''
Senator Robichaud: We are recommending it read "à moins d'autorisation des members.''
Mr. O'Brien: Correct.
Senator Robichaud: It should read "à moins de la permission,'' instead of "d'autorisation.'' Is that correct?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there consensus on that amendment?
Senator Banks: I understand that in English "leave'' means "unanimous consent.''
The Chairman: Correct.
Senator Banks: Does "permission'' in the sense that you have proposed it mean the same thing?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
The Chairman: It is in the definition section.
Mr. Robertson: It is in rule 4(k)(iii) of the Rules of the Senate, which is the interpretation section. Subparagraph (iii) defines "leave'' and the comparable word in French is "permission.'' That is the term that should have been used in the French version of the recommendation.
Senator Corbin: "Leave'' means "unanimous consent?''
Mr. Robertson: Yes. In English, "leave of the Senate'' means "leave granted without a dissenting voice.''
[Translation]
In French, "permission du Sénat'' means "permission accordée sans dissidence.''
[English]
Senator Di Nino: For clarification, am I correct that committees cannot conduct business unless both sides of the house are present?
Senator Banks: That is a procedure, not a rule.
The Chairman: They need a quorum. I think there is a convention.
Mr. Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: The quorum provisions of the rules only require a certain number of members of the committee to be present. As I believe we may have done in this committee, when provision is made for a reduced quorum for the purposes of hearing testimony from witnesses but not for making decisions, some committees make a proviso that at least one member from both parties be present. However, the rules themselves do not require that for a full quorum both parties be represented.
Senator Di Nino: That is the answer to the question. We are trying to be fair and democratic, but in our discussion we gave no consideration to that issue. Should we have? This is on bills. Obviously, we can play tricks and games, and we have all done that from time to time.
Senator Andreychuk: In this very committee, the chair diverged from the original schedule for a meeting and set a meeting on a day when our members could not attend. The meeting was held in the absence of any opposition members. A bill was put through, in the knowledge that this was not in keeping with our convention and practices, at least. To my knowledge, it has happened that the majority has insisted on moving ahead. That is one issue. The other is that the meeting was not held in the regular time slot for that committee. The committee was purposely moved to a Friday, and our side could not attend. We told the chair that, but the chair insisted on going ahead. The majority of members from the government side of the Senate attended and voted a bill through without one member of the opposition present.
The Chairman: Do you characterize what occurred as mischief?
Senator Andreychuk: I would not characterize it in any way. I only know that it denied the opposition its legitimate right to voice its concerns according to the rules.
Senator Stratton: I would reinforce that. I was serving on the committee at that time and I would substantiate what Senator Andreychuk has stated.
Senator Fraser: I was present as well. My recollection is that I was told that, prior to my time in the Senate, there had been a similar occasion with the cast of characters reversed. However, in spite of what happened or did not happen in connection with that meeting, the point before us is the fourth report from this committee. Senator Di Nino has raised a serious, substantive issue that goes beyond this report. We are all agreed on this report, I believe. Whether the rules should be adjusted to require the presence of both government and opposition members when substantive votes are taken is a serious, hefty issue. I do not think we should determine that issue in the context of a different motion. However, it would be worth putting on the committee's agenda for future business. The Rules Committee, unlike most committees, can set its own agenda in that it does not require a reference from Senate.
The Chairman: The Internal Economy Committee is in the same category; hence, those are the only two committees with that status.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: For now, I would rather we confine ourselves to the report before the committee. If we initiate a debate on the point raised by Senator Di Nino and if we arrange to have a member of the Opposition present, then the Opposition could also resort to playing games and we would make no headway at all.
I think it would be preferable to focus on this particular issue and to discuss the point raised by Senator Di Nino at a later meeting.
[English]
The Chairman: I do not believe that I heard Senator Di Nino say we had to hold off on this. He was raising it as a matter to be considered. Senator Di Nino did you want to clarify that?
Senator Di Nino: I agree that we should go ahead with this, although I am uncomfortable with the issue of conducting business, particularly votes, without the opposition present. I stated in my remarks that games are played by both sides, which is inappropriate. I also understand the concern of Senator Robichaud that, in playing those games, one could be mischievous in an inappropriate manner. I have highlighted my concern. I should raise that in the appropriate way, whether in the form of a motion in the Senate or within this group, so that it will be looked at. Perhaps someone should guide me on this, but the committee should look at this as soon as possible. If we are serious about respecting the rights of minorities and democratic principles, we must decide that issue.
Senator Maheu: I wish to support and, if necessary, move a motion that this committee do seriously look at the issue of quorum constituting at least one member of opposition for any meeting that we hold. I assumed it was in the Rules of the Senate already because I assume we have quorum when Senator Di Nino walks into a meeting room. I support both Senator Fraser and Senator Di Nino on this issue and I request that it be put on the agenda of the committee for future study, but not the far distant future, if possible.
The Chairman: Procedurally, we have another matter before us but perhaps members could agree. Does anyone want to speak against that?
Senator Corbin: I am not a member of the committee but wanted to sit in because I am interested in the report. Yesterday, I sat in for Senator Chaput.
There are two separate issues. The matter of quorum and attendance of parties for meetings, whether for the study of bills or hearing testimony, is decided at the organizational meeting of every committee. Staff supplies every committee chair with a list of things to do before the undertaking of any study of bills or other matter. I chair the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and I would never hold a meeting without the presence of a member of the official opposition. I do not think you have to take that in account with respect to today's motion because that issue should have been settled by each committee at the beginning of the session in the organizational meetings. That is when this kind of issue is resolved and the basic rules are set down for the rest of the session. It has always been the practice in the Senate to do it that way.
The Chairman: That is true, but there is nothing to preclude this committee from making a recommendation on it.
Senator Corbin: It should already be in place. However, it is the choice of this committee.
Senator Banks: Mr. Chairman, I too am not a member of the committee and my interest is in this report. Like several others here, I chair a committee and would never, on any substantive member, convene a meeting or allow it to proceed if an opposition member were not present. It is a convention and not a rule because, I suspect, there were no party caucuses in the Senate before. The only caucuses were comprised of 24, 24, 24, and 24, as per the original intent of the Senate. When you consider this recommendation, please be careful about the rule because on either side of the fence it would permit a mischief of a kind to obstruct proposed legislation going forward simply by non-attendance. When you devise the recommendation and the proposal for the rule, please bear that other end of the stick in mind.
The Chairman: There is some linkage, but let us hold Senator Maheu's motion until we have completed the draft report that is before us. Let us see if there are any other questions or whether anyone else wishes to speak to the matter before us.
Senator Andreychuk: I will certainly go along with the idea that we accept the report but on the understanding that we deal with the other issue. They are linked, and I do not quite agree with Senator Banks because the cards are not stacked with the majority. We need to look at that rule, but I would have this report go forward today on the understanding that we deal with the other issue at the earliest possible time, which would follow today's other agenda item.
The Chairman: Does anyone wish to speak not in support of the adoption of the draft report before us?
Senator Robichaud: I want to ensure that we are looking at the report and not at the motion of Senator Maheu a few minutes ago.
The Chairman: That is right. The motion will be later.
Senator Joyal: I am in agreement with the substance of the report. However, should not the report recall the convention that a vote on clause by clause is normally taken after notice has been served ahead of time to members of the committee? That protects the rights of full members of the committee to attend and not be taken by surprise with an immediate vote upon the call to order.
Senator Di Nino: The word "appropriate'' would give it additional weight, such that the notice of the clause-by- clause consideration could not go out at seven o'clock the night before the vote.
The Chairman: Are you suggesting an amendment to this draft?
Senator Joyal: I would just mention that the committee noted the convention whereby committees normally give notice to members ahead of time that clause-by-clause consideration will take place.
The Chairman: You are suggesting that in a report we would note that but leave the wording as it except for the amendment on permission —
Senator Joyal: Yes, exactly. I am not suggesting an amendment to the recommendation, just in the telling of the facts that we have noted that there is a convention of that nature.
Senator Fraser: Was it a convention? Convention carries a bit more weight, it seems to me.
The Chairman: Is there agreement for the adoption of this report, with the additional notation being made, which will be drafted? We may not actually give the final approval of that until next week unless there is — Senator Di Nino?
Senator Di Nino: I am prepared to do it and waive a motion that the chair, in consultation with Senator Joyal, can approve the addition, and he can do it at your convenience.
The Chairman: Are we agreed to that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Stratton: When will this be reported then?
Mr. Armitage: Depending on the availability of the chair and Senator Joyal, tomorrow afternoon.
Senator Stratton: That is not good enough, sorry. Tomorrow, yes or no?
Mr. Armitage: Tomorrow.
The Chairman: Let us go back to Senator Maheu's motion that we put on our agenda for future consideration — and if we could have a report ready for next week, we could even start it then — that is, the question as to whether the definition of "quorum'' should be revisited, and review the suggestion that has been put before us. Do we need any further discussion on that?
Senator Joyal: Perhaps we could ask Mr. Robertson, following the intervention of Senator Corbin, to look into the proceedings of formation of committees and which conventional provisions we normally accept in terms of quorum in committees. Is it really standardized all the through the committees or not? I should like to refresh my memory on the nature of the definition of quorum. It would be helpful for discussion.
The Chairman: We have taken due note of that.
Senator Fraser: At the same time, could there be a little backgrounder about what is done on a representative sample of other Westminster-type chambers for determining quorum? I think Senator Robichaud and Senator Di Nino between them have already established the gravity and the difficulty of this issue. It is not an easy one to settle, and I wonder if other chambers have grappled with this and have come up with appropriate mechanisms, short of just hard and fast rules that allow people to block infinitely the work of a Parliament. I should like to have more information on that.
The Chairman: We have taken note of that.
Senator Joyal: On the same account, I might be mistaken, but I am under the impression that there was once a Speaker's ruling on that, following a "precedent'' that happened in a committee whereby a bill was adopted without the participation of the opposition. It was raised at report stage in the House of Commons. Maybe we should revisit the decision of the Speaker on that. I cannot recall exactly the circumstances, but it rings a bell in my head.
Senator Di Nino: Any other pertinent information should be looked at as well.
The Chairman: I think we can rely on their judgment to put anything in there that warrants being in there.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I believe the Speaker already had to rule on this matter in the case mentioned by our colleagues.
Senator Joyal: The Speaker has already made a ruling on this?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Are we fine with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Let us move to the next item, the consideration of the use of laptops by senators in the chamber. This matter had originally been referred to us by Senator Gauthier, but because we were not dealing with anything until the code relating to conflict of interest had been completed, we were not able to deal with it prior to his retirement. However, it was referred to us, and Senator Mitchell, who spent time in the Alberta legislature, has also raised the issue with me. Our clerk has revised the briefing note and he will give us a précis of it.
Mr. Armitage: When this subject was originally raised, Internal Economy had an interest in it as well, I believe, so the briefing note has been drafted with their considerations in mind. However, it also has a section on some of the questions you might want to ask yourselves.
I do not sense a great push for the use of laptops in the chamber right now, but Internal Economy has approved an infrastructure report for the Senate chamber and for this room here. Included in the ambit of that report will be the feasibility of providing power and land connectivity to the chamber. The thinking is that it is an economical use of engineering time and effort; if we are going to provide other services to the Senate chamber, we also should think about the viability of doing that. While there is not an immediate need to come to a decision on this, that time may come once the possibility is there.
The decisions of the Speaker to date on the use of a BlackBerry, as an example, have been that electronic devices that do not emit an electronic sound are permitted. His decisions were not appealed, so it would stand to reason that stand-alone laptops that are muted would be allowed as well — although I do not know what use they would have if they do not have connectivity to the LAN, other than to be a more bulky way of bringing your papers into the chamber.
However, as you can see from the other jurisdictions, the vast majority permit the use of laptops and support their use in one way or another. Some are allowing wireless access to their local area networks. The Canadian Parliament Hill attitude toward wireless networks is negative, in that they think it serves as a bit of security risk to the local area network. Therefore, physical connectivity would be preferable.
Issues that the Senate might want to consider include the impact on the dynamics of debate — will laptops detract from debate or add to debate? Senators themselves will have to judge the pros and the cons of that. How could electronic devices be used to participate in the procedural aspects of the chamber, in terms of having motions drafted and made available to other senators, is another issue for consideration?
In some of the jurisdictions, restrictions have been placed as to when a laptop can be used. An example would be, say, Question Period: Should a minister be able to receive quick updates from his or her office? Should members be allowed to receive and use emails to ask questions in the corollary?
As well, there are a number of technical considerations that we have outlined more for an Internal Economy perspective than a Rules perspective. That is a summary.
The Chairman: To clarify the status quo, Senator Gauthier did have a laptop. As I understand it, Senator Spivak has requested permission to use one for the same reason and so she has one as well, correct?
Mr. Armitage: That is the real-time transcription issue related to the ability to hear the proceedings in the chamber.
Senator Stratton: I am a bit of traditionalist here. I do not particularly like to see the desks all cluttered with electronic equipment. I do not think we need to consider the BlackBerry, because, as time goes on, we are educating one another as to its use. If the microphone is on, your BlackBerry is off. The only problem that arises is the beep that sounds when a signal is received. That is a matter of education, and that can be done through your caucuses. I know I tend to forget.
With respect to the general use of the laptop, I do not really see an overwhelming need for them in the chamber itself. Why would we want to have a laptop there? It is bad enough now with the BlackBerries. Why would we want people to be even more distracted, as a result of composing letters or drafting speeches?
Senator Fraser: Like Senator Stratton, I am a traditionalist, but I do not want to come across as a complete Luddite. For six years or so, I sat beside Senator Gauthier in the chamber. The technology that allowed him to participate in the debates was absolutely wonderful — and I was proud of the Senate for just assuming it should be done and doing it — but it is a distraction to have a laptop next to you. It really is. Keep in mind, as well, that Senator Gauthier was a passive user of his laptop. He never touched the keyboard. He simply read the screen. The simple fact that the screen is blinking away and changing is a distraction. In addition to that, having senators typing away on their keyboards would create noise. Yes, the sound on a computer can be muted, but not the keyboard. I think senators, if laptops find their way into the chamber, may be surprised to discover the reality of having laptops in the chamber.
Senator LeBreton: I am a traditionalist at heart. When I worked for Mr. Diefenbaker, he used to make the argument that we should go back to the Westminster model and not even have desks.
BlackBerries are fine, even though it bothers me when they interfere with the sound system. However, I have been in the gallery at the House of Commons on a couple of occasions, sitting and watching the MPs. Some of them are not even engaging in what is going on around them. In one instance, I watched a Member of Parliament e-browsing on eBay in the House. I was sitting behind him, and I was able to see right down. I clearly recognized eBay.
I think the same as Senator Fraser. I would not want to be trying to concentrate on a debate when I am about to make a speech and have the person next to me clicking away, doing things he or she has ample time to do. We are in the chamber five days a week. We have plenty of office time. Granted, most of us are able to use laptops no matter where we are. I just do not see any need for them in the chamber, so I am against them.
Senator Jaffer: I agree with Senator LeBreton, and one would not want people to be clicking away or making noises in our chamber. However, computers and laptops have changed. I have a laptop that I write on, similar to writing on a piece of paper. I have not taken it into the chamber with me, because I do not want to break any rules. I think we have to look forward. The rule should be such that if a laptop were not disturbing, not making noise, we should allow it. If a laptop makes noise, we should always have an opportunity to say no.
As I say, there are laptops that do not make noise. I can bring mine in to show you. I do not think we should just say "no'' straight out. Technology is changing, and the needs of senators are changing. I should like you to consider that, as long as it is not disturbing other senators, we should allow people to use them.
The question arose when I started using a BlackBerry. Senator LaPierre brought this to the attention of the house, and the Speaker allowed it as long as it did not make noises. Senator Stratton remembers that. The same thing should apply for laptops. If they do not make noise, they should be allowed, and senators who have the desire to use them should be allowed to use them.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I use a BlackBerry. In some respects, I am a traditionalist because computers are not my strong suit. However, we cannot discount the possibility that one day, we will be allowed to have computers. First, we need to look at the noise issue and the dynamics of the process, so that debate is not disrupted. Senators already carry BlackBerries with them, they already attend to office business, and now, they want permission to bring in laptops. We need to draw the line somewhere. In my opinion, we need to give this matter careful consideration before we allow laptops in the Senate.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, if we wanted to restrict the use of laptops in the Chamber, we would need to amend the Rules because these do not allow the practice at this point in time. Is that correct?
[English]
The Chairman: What is your view on that, Mr. Armitage?
Mr. Armitage: At the beginning of the paper, I extrapolated from the Speaker's rulings. It is my interpretation, for whatever that is worth, that a stand-alone laptop that does not emit noise could conceivably fit within the parameters of his previous rulings.
On the expanded question, right now a stand-alone laptop will not, I do not think, have a huge impact on the dynamics of the chamber. However, once a laptop is connected to a local area network and there is access to email and the Internet, you can begin to imagine the possibility of scripted replies, or what have you, or distraction on the part of individual senators in terms of being absorbed in whatever they are doing on their laptop instead of the debate, or by neighbouring senators because of what they are absorbed in.
These are things that have come up in workshops that I have attended on the prospect of using laptops in either committee or the chamber that I thought would be relevant to this committee.
The Chairman: Is there anything further on that? Would the laptop that Senator Jaffer described, the one that she writes on, fit within that?
Mr. Armitage: I believe hers is known as a tablet. If it is stand-alone, it would appear to fit within the parameters of the Speaker's previous rulings.
Senator Robichaud: So the question is whether my own laptop makes noise?
Senator Banks: I am not a member of the committee. I am a Luddite and a traditionalist. I believe there should not be desks, only benches. You will know where I am coming from.
However, the way technology is going, there is no fundamental difference between the capacity of an LAN- connected laptop or stand-alone, because there are stand-alones that can access the Internet right now. The second thing is that, with the continuance of miniaturization, you are now discussing the same thing as whether you should allow 45 RPM records to be brought into the chamber. The capacity that now exists on your BlackBerry is the same as on a stand-alone laptop. As horrible as they are, BlackBerries are more decorous than stand-alone laptops.
Senator Di Nino: To add a little colour to the discussion, one of my colleagues on the board of directors of a company of which I was the president said to me that he was quitting the board. I asked what we did to him, and he said, "Nothing, but I will stay on if you have meetings at seven o'clock in the morning, no tables, no chairs and no coffee.'' That is sometimes how we look at things.
There are two issues. One is that I do not think there should be any mixing up of this issue with the use of those with special needs or disabilities. I do not think we are talking about that.
The Chairman: That is a separate issue.
Senator Di Nino: Exactly. I just wanted to make sure that is the case. If Senator Spivak is asking for one because she needs it, we should not even think about it; just provide it.
Senator LeBreton: She has it.
Senator Di Nino: It came up so I wanted to say that.
The Chairman: That was just for clarification.
Senator Di Nino: However, if it is not today, it will be tomorrow. It will not be long before technology will find its way in the chamber. We should be looking at when and whether we are ready. For example, what kinds of equipment do we allow; what kind of disruption or distraction would be permissible? I would certainly not want to be sitting beside someone who is clicking away at his or her laptop. That would disturb my mental process. I would rather not have them at all. I would rather not even have the BlackBerries. I, too, am a bit of a Luddite that way. However, I think we are talking about a question of time, and we may as well bite the bullet.
Senator Corbin: We have to consider the dignity of the chamber itself and what the perception would be in terms of visitors in the gallery seeing this electronic clutter all over the place. It is quite possible that not all senators would wish to use a laptop. A good question would be whether it will get more senators to attend the chamber. I doubt it.
If I were making a speech and saw my colleagues clicking away, I would take that as an affront. It would be akin to talking to an empty chamber. It is much more obtrusive than someone handwriting or reading an article in a magazine. I can do both, and catch important parts of debates, but a laptop requires full concentration.
Of course, we serve the handicapped, but remember there are cells set up in the back corridor to accommodate people who really have to do office work. The Senate chamber is not an office; it is a place of debate.
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Corbin has covered one of the points: We are in the chamber to debate, not to carry on routine business. If laptops are allowed into the chamber, with the proviso that they will be discreet and that there will be no noise factor, who will police it? We are having enough problems with BlackBerries, and we are working that through — not well all the time, but we are trying.
I have been on Air Canada flights where a passenger was using a laptop and the person sitting next to the passenger objected; the flight attendant had to determine whether the noise was sufficient enough to ask the person to shut down the laptop. What is noise to one person is not noise to another. If we allow laptops in, who will do the policing? As well, it probably will not be the laptops we have currently; the technology is changing very quickly. If there is not an overwhelming need for it, if we provided access in the back for all senators to work, I do not see why we would encourage it at this point.
Senator Stratton: I have been trying to get on for about five minutes. I have a point of order, if nothing else. Why are we talking about this?
The Chairman: We are talking about this because it was referred to the committee appropriately. Senator Gauthier raised it.
Senator Stratton: How long ago did Senator Gauthier retire?
The Chairman: I know, but it is clear to me there is no consensus to change the status quo. That is where it will wind up.
Senator Stratton: My first point is that we deal with some issues and forget about others, instead of taking them in order. If there is a reason of time we will bump them to the top, but right now it does not appear to be in order whatsoever.
My second point is this: We need to talk about how bills are referred to committees at second reading, without approval in principle, with approval in principle and what happens to them there, because we have a terrible procedure right now that does not work. Think about it.
The Chairman: There was one other item I was hoping to deal with before you left.
Senator Joyal: Sometimes you have to describe the situation in the extreme to understand in fact what kind of boat you are rowing. I would be personally offended if each and every senator in the room but the one speaking had his or her newspaper open in front of everyone, waving it and reading.
Senator Fraser: That is against the rules.
Senator Joyal: The decorum in the place has a role. It is not there just to make sure we have a fancy outfit. The decorum is essentially to help us perform the functions we are called upon to perform in the chamber. You can wear anything you want in the corridor, but once you enter the chamber there is a decorum, which has a meaning. In other words, you are limited in what you are allowed to show up in as an individual.
It is the same with laptops. Suppose there were 105 laptops in the place. If each of us were doing our own thing, as you say, surfing on eBay or watching a movie or a soap or whatever on our laptop, would we then be performing the deliberative function we are expected to perform when we are in the chamber? That does not mean that we are expecting each and every senator to listen to what another senator says, but many issues are raised in the Senate which I know nothing about, but I listen because I might grasp something that will help me when I have to vote, in my soul and conscience.
If we create a situation that in fact detracts from that responsibility, we have to question ourselves about whether it is needed to help us to perform that deliberative function. This is the kind of context in which we must think about this issue.
All the other aspects that you have mentioned would detract from the spontaneity. I would put up my laptop on a pile of books or folders and read my speech from it. Sooner or later that is what would happen. Even if it happened only with one senator, I think it would change something fundamental in the way the chamber operates.
I agree that writing on a tablet is an improvement. Your message goes to your office. Instead of your assistant coming to pick up your papers, it goes directly to your office. I agree with that, but that is not the same as having a full network that would change the nature of the chamber. There are limits to what we should allow; otherwise, we change what the chamber is all about.
The Chairman: It is clear there is no consensus to move forward on this.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, senators can bring laptops into meetings. The same rules apply to these proceedings. Correct?
Senator Joyal: Absolutely. The same rules of decorum apply in committee rooms and in the Senate Chamber.
Senator Robichaud: There is nothing to stop senators from bringing in a laptop. If senators decide to come to the Senate Chamber with a laptop and we have no objections to that practice, then we need to change the Rules accordingly. The practice may be disruptive up to a point. But so too can two people having a conversation in the Chamber. There are greater distractions in the House than the presence of laptops.
On looking at the background material assembled for us, we see that several legislative assemblies have already authorized this practice. Maybe we need to be looking at whether debate was impeded in any way by the presence of these laptops in these assemblies.
Senator Chaput: I think the committee should study this further, examine the question of decorum and everything else that goes on in the Senate, not just the laptop issue. I am wondering if perhaps we should not review our Rules to ensure that someone has sufficient authority to maintain some order. Some individuals are disrespectful when Senators are speaking. Certain kinds of behaviour should be outlawed in the Senate. I would like the committee to delve into this whole issue.
[English]
The Chairman: Could you write down a definition of the scope of everything you wish to have discussed? I will leave that up to you. For now, I think it is clear there is no consensus to take any initiative on allowing laptops.
Senator Robichaud: Any initiative would be toward disallowing laptops.
The Chairman: I was getting to that. There does seem to be some grey area as to whether or not to allow laptops. If you bring one in that emits a noise, it would seem to contravene the existing rules. If the type that Senator Jaffer referred to is totally quiet and not wired, that might make it, right?
Senator Andreychuk: Unless it squeaks.
The Chairman: Do you want to have a report back on the type of wording we should use if someone wanted to advocate that we change the status quo? Are you seeking to change the status quo, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: No.
The Chairman: We will just leave it. It is a can of worms.
That was a good analogy about the 45s. I was in the Irish Parliament two months ago, and they had electronic items everywhere. They seemed to be state-of-the-art and did not seem to be beeping or anything like that. As time goes by, I think these things will get less intrusive.
There is clearly no consensus to do anything right now, so we might as well just leave it. If Senator Chaput wants to put something in words on decorum, we can look at that and deal with it when we get it.
We have a couple of items to tidy up. First, on the issue of chairmen as members of Internal Economy, each of the caucuses were to go back and then come back. I sort of felt bad that Senator Stratton had to leave. Could I have the attention of Senator LeBreton and Senator Di Nino?
Senator Stratton said that the consensus of their caucus was that they did not think they should be members. They should be chairmen only. I can assure you, and I may be corrected, that in our caucus there was no agreement to change the status quo. In other words, there is nothing barring chairmen, not to say it is widely done, from serving as members. There was division, but there was no consensus to change the status quo.
Senator Di Nino: There was division in our caucus also.
Senator LeBreton: The members of our caucus who are on the selection committee took a very clear and definitive position during selection. Senator Robichaud will remember this.
Senator Stratton and I made a very strong pitch that a person who was a chairman of a committee should not serve on Internal Economy, for obvious reasons. We did not extend that to deputy chairmen. That was, in my opinion, the feeling of the majority of our caucus. I feel I am right about that.
The Chairman: To bring closure to this item, you may recall that when Mr. Robertson did the briefing point on this issue, the third bullet point said: In terms of options, it could be left to each party's Senate caucus to decide whether it is appropriate that senators who are chairmen of committees should be members of he Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
We do not have to do that in any formal way, but it sounds like there is no incentive from either caucus to change the status quo. Is that a fair way of putting it? I am suggesting that we might as well say we are not doing anything on this.
Senator LeBreton: That is not the impression I got from the discussion in our caucus. My personal view is that a person who is chairman of any committee and is trying to deal with all the various spending areas of the Senate is in a preferred position and in a potential conflict of interest if he or she is making a case in Internal Economy. I think that view is shared by many colleagues. It is a position we held on our side in the selection committee, and I believe there were quite a few people on the other side who had the same opinion.
I would not want to presume that the agreement is to leave the status quo. That is not my understanding on it.
The Chairman: I am not saying we have to leave the status quo. However, I am certainly under the impression that our caucus would have no quarrel with your caucus deciding what your modus operandi will be.
Senator LeBreton: It is more than just the caucuses. It is the Senate as a whole.
The Chairman: That was the view of the former leader, but our current leader is not of that view. There are quite a few members who are of the same view as our leader.
Senator Chaput: That should be discussed again, because if I remember correctly quite a few members of our caucus did not agree with that. In other words, we agreed with what Senator LeBreton and Senator Andreychuk have just said.
Senator Di Nino: And vice versa in our caucus.
Senator LeBreton: Who?
Senator Chaput: I do not know where we go with this.
The Chairman: At the moment, there is no consensus to go anywhere.
Senator Banks: Several of us looked at this question, and there has never been any piece of demonstrable evidence of a committee chairman who was a member of the Internal Economy Committee having the slightest effect on the outcome of his application for money on behalf of his committee.
I believe the opposite of what has been suggested by our colleagues. There must be some chairs of committees on the Internal Economy Committee so that the committee has the benefit of understanding, which they otherwise do not and will not, the difficulties that exist on the other side of the fence. I agree with the leader of our caucus that there should be no restriction, providing, of course, that the committee would never be comprised entirely of committee chairs. It ought not to be as a matter of course proscribed.
Senator Fraser: I stand 180 degrees in opposition to my respected colleague, Senator Banks. To have committee chairs sit on Internal Economy reminds me irresistibility about that deathless line about boys in the backroom cutting up the cash. I speak as the chairman of a committee. I would not want to sit on Internal Economy. My first loyalty is to my committee. I will fight tooth and nail for whatever I can get for my committee, and I would expect every other chair to do the same thing. I would not want chairs of other committees sitting in adjudication of my budget as compared to theirs.
I believe what you say, Senator Banks, about the enormous integrity with which people approach their jobs, but for those of us on the outside, it does not pass the smell test. I am sorry. I am also in opposition to my own leader on this one, I gather.
Senator Andreychuk: The problem since the day I arrived in this Senate has been fairness between committees and the budgets they receive. If some chairmen sit on the Internal Economy Committee and appear to get more money or do get more money than those who do not sit on it, it just exacerbates a delicate problem that already exists. We must all come to the table with equal status and make our case to as impartial a group as possible.
There exists an inherent bias. If you care enough about your committee, as the chair, you are going to be very committed about getting the money for your committee, because you strongly believe in it. You will not feel as strongly about someone else's case. You will have to try and fight your own bias, which all people probably try, but I do not think people always succeed there. That is the dilemma. I want fairness to the table.
The Chairman: Those in our caucus who are ad idem with the Conservative caucus, the ball is in your court to raise it again in our caucus to see if you can get a consensus on it, because at the moment there is not.
Senator Di Nino: If I were a member of Internal Economy, which I am, I would feel insulted by the notion that just because a person happens to be a chairman he or she would be able to sway my vote one way or the other. I do not believe that really is the case.
The Chairman: I hope I do not have to declare a conflict, because I am a chairman and I am on the Internal Economy Committee, but I did not ask to be. I got put on it.
Senator Jaffer: I thought we set up a conventional practice that the chair would not vote. Can we not go with that suggestion, that the chair of a particular committee would not vote?
Senator Di Nino: They would not be present, period, when discussing the affairs relating to their committee.
Senator Fraser: Then all chairmen would absent themselves from all budget discussions.
Senator Di Nino: On their budget.
The Chairman: Senator Furey took note of that, but I do not think it has been formalized. Is that fair, Senator Furey?
Senator Furey: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I will leave that now.
We have set up a steering committee to deal with the Inuktitut question. The views of the leadership on both sides were canvassed. Senator Di Nino will be representing the Conservative caucus, Senator Joyal will be representing the Liberal caucus, and I will be on it as well. We will probably only have one meeting of the full committee next week, and we will spend the other day on this.
On the issue of revisiting the definition of quorum, could we be ready for Tuesday?
Mr. Robertson: Yes.
The Chairman: Is it agreed? We will revisit the definition of quorum, and if that does not go long the steering committee can meet. The full committee will not need to meet on Wednesday. There will only be one meeting of the full committee next week, on Tuesday, and the steering committee may or may not meet on Wednesday. Are we agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.