Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 2 - Evidence, October 24, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:33 a.m. to consider an amendment to rule 86(1)(h) (Name of Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs); and, pursuant to rule 48(1), the question that whenever the Senate is sitting, the proceedings of the upper chamber, like those of the lower one, be televised, or otherwise audio-visually recorded, so that those proceedings can be carried live or replayed on CPAC, or any other television station, at times that are convenient for Canadians.
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: The first item I will be dealing with this morning is the amendment to rule 86(1)(h), the name of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Our first and only witness is the chair of that committee, Senator Hugh Segal. Senator, you have the floor.
Hon. Hugh Segal: My purpose this morning is to make the case for a modest change in the name of our committee, to incorporate the words ``international trade,'' so that the committee name would become the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. This reflects a unanimous consensus among members of the committee itself.
As colleagues will recall, the motion was moved by the former chair and present vice-chair, Senator Stollery, and supported by Senator Austin in the chamber. For reference to this committee, it passed in the chamber unanimously. Senator Prud'homme, a distinguished independent senator, also spoke in favour of the proposition.
The purpose is simply this: It has been the practice of the committee over its long history to consider international trade matters. Not having that as part of the committee's name leaves the impression that all trade matters would end up in front of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce or the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which have tended generically to deal with internal trade matters.
I understand full well that, in the event of a ways and means motion coming from the other place to the Senate for, say, the softwood lumber agreement, it would go to either of those committees in the normal course, and not necessarily come to Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The agenda of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would be by reference from the Senate on an ongoing basis, as has been the case in the past.
I am not suggesting that a change of name would automatically broaden the mandate of the committee; rather, it would merely reflect what has gone on, be more accurate and, as such, be constructive for those who wish to understand the operation of the Senate and the distinction between the various committees that serve the Senate.
[Translation]
I have nothing further to add. I am ready to entertain questions from colleagues, if this can assist you in your deliberations.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, senator. I am opening it up to questions from any of our colleagues.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I have no qualms about changing the name to ``foreign affairs and international trade.'' However, since these are two separate areas, could we possibly request from the Committees Directorate the services of a second person? One person could handle the foreign affairs component, while the other could handle international trade. What do you think? Some committees have proceeded in this manner in the past.
Senator Segal: In fact, what you are wondering is if the name change will result in our asking for additional help. Generally speaking — and I will defer to my colleagues who have more experience in this area than I do — we seek out the assistance of the Library of Parliament. In matters of international trade, the library will assign someone with expertise in this area to the committee. As far as foreign affairs are concerned, we will continue to work with the experts assigned to us from time to time by the library. We will not be asking for additional staff. We will work with the services provided by the library, which are adequate. Their analysts are highly qualified to meet our needs.
Senator Robichaud: And that will be the case for as long as you continue serving as chair of this committee.
Senator Segal: That is correct. However, it is not up to me.
Senator Robichaud: I was wondering about this, but another committee with two components, namely defence and national security, managed to have two experts assigned to it on a regular basis.
Senator Joyal: I apologize, but I missed the first part of your presentation. I see that you are proposing to add ``international trade'' to the committee's name. However, why not call it the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Trade and International Aid. Paragraphs (i) through (iii) specifically refer to international treaties and agreements, external trade and foreign aid.
If this committee is to become responsible for international aid programs, the majority of which presumably originate with CIDA, and if you want the committee's name to more accurately reflect its mandate, why is international aid not included?
Senator Segal: When we discussed this in committee, we decided that the current reference to ``international affairs'' encompassed both diplomacy and international aid in all of our proceedings to date. Although committee colleagues did not discuss your proposal, senator, I feel confident that if the committee were to suggest adding international aid to the name, our colleagues on the foreign affairs committee would have no objections.
I am not opposed to the idea. My motion called for the addition of the reference to international trade. However, if the Rules Committee wants to bring in an additional change, I do not have a problem with that.
[English]
Senator Joyal: I am right in saying that you are concerned about whether the program of support that the Canadian government would implement and administer in its agreements or initiatives would be worthwhile.
Senator Segal: Indeed. The minutes of the Foreign Affairs Committee during my brief time as chair will show that we have already had the presence of the Minister of International Development. We questioned her closely on international development activity, specifically in Africa, as a constituent part of our general review of Africa. We viewed it as part of the external foreign affairs general title. However, if colleagues on this committee felt that being precise in that regard would be even more helpful, I am sure my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee would have no difficulty with it — and some of them are here this morning.
The Chairman: For the purposes of information, I wish to remind all senators that rule 86(1)(h) under the Rules of the Senate states that the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs has, under its general responsibilities, treaties and international agreements, external trade, foreign aid, and territorial and offshore matters. That is already prescribed in the Rules of the Senate. Of course, if this committee wishes to add to or take from the amendment to the rules as suggested by Senator Segal, I would be pleased to discuss it. Are there other comments?
Senator Andreychuk: I would rather that we not add it, because it is in our terms of reference. We are trying to mirror the policy activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. There was a recognition that the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee return to the trade aspect when the two departments came together. It would give us a clear outline of what the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee would be responsible for and hope that other Senate committees would not intrude on it.
When he proposed a reference to look into the consequences of the evacuation from Lebanon, Senator Segal phoned me to say that some of the issues might have a human rights implication and asked whether I had a problem with that. I knew he would be doing something that was traditionally under the mandate of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which has a human rights component. However, he was careful not to step into my sphere of influence as chair of the Human Rights Committee. Perhaps other committees have not approached it that way.
I would be in favour of keeping the name, because we do cultural, foreign and trade issues. If we are to add aid, then we would have to enumerate all other categories. The result would be a 10-line name. While aid certainly is a significant part of it, it is generally understood that the Foreign Affairs Minister is the senior minister, even though CIDA operates somewhat independently.
Senator Joyal: My preoccupation was not to list everything that comes under Foreign Affairs and International Trade. As you said, there is a human rights component, an emergency relief component and many others. My concern is to reflect the division of responsibilities within the public administration — since CIDE operates on its own terms and has its own minister. To reflect the mandate and the broad approach of the committee to at least two departments — I am more concerned with the departmental reality of what exists within the public administration than I am with the list of responsibilities. That is why I raised that concern. It happens that you, Senator Segal, oversee not only Foreign Affairs and International Trade but also CIDA, which is another minister's portfolio. Essentially, I had in mind not to try to list everything. I agree with Senator Andreychuk that, if we were to list all the components, it would take a paragraph to write the name of the committee. I was more concerned about the division of public administration of the two different portfolios.
Senator Segal: For clarification for the record, the only mandate I have from the Foreign Affairs Committee relates to the proposal now before this committee for its consideration. I do not have a mandate for anything beyond that.
The Chairman: Thank you for that clarification.
Senator Cordy: I do not have a problem with the name change because it is already in the mandate of the committee to deal with external trade. However, at least one Senate committee had a name change and then immediately added a subcommittee to the committee, with accompanying costs — and that concerns me. Would you deal with international trade at the committee level, or would you add a subcommittee?
Senator Segal: Thank you for that question, which is both timely and extremely helpful. I have sensed no interest amongst my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee for the use of subcommittees. In fact, with various burdens that our committee has dealt with, one could have made the case that one could have been more efficient in the use of time through the establishment of subcommittees. However, I have found absolutely no constituency for that. We have a strong culture in the committee of working as a committee of the whole and I would not be in any way supportive, aside from some absolutely extraordinary circumstance, of there ever being a subcommittee. Working as a committee of the whole reflects the spirit of Senate deliberations and the rights of all the senators who are members of the committee.
The Chairman: If there are no other comments, I would ask that someone move that the rule change be approved or amended.
Senator Andreychuk: I so move as proposed.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that I report to the Senate that the committee recommends that 86(1)(h) be amended in the manner proposed in the motion before the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion agreed to.
The next item on the agenda will likely take a little longer to consider — the motion by Senator Segal in respect of televising the proceedings of the upper chamber. Once again, we are pleased to have as our first witness, although not the only one, the Honourable Hugh Segal, one of our dear colleagues.
Senator Segal: I will be brief because I know this matter requires far more detailed consideration than was the case with the first item on today's agenda.
I will add to my comments of April 5 when the motion was made, and referred to this committee subsequent thereto, to address the question of legitimacy, if I may, and why I think components of the proceedings of the upper chamber, in whatever stages this committee might choose to recommend, should be televised, perhaps beginning with Question Period and then moving to the Order Paper and Notice Paper, so that they might be arranged to be effectively televised. Legitimacy in our general approach to governance is established through two or three important pillars.
One of the pillars is people actually having a chance to see what a legislative body does and how it does it — the intensity, integrity and hard work with which members of that body address the questions, and the frankness and openness of the debate that transpires around questions that are being considered.
While CPAC certainly would report that the numbers for the viewership of Senate and House of Commons committees are not high, the issue is not the number of viewers; rather, the issue is that the viewers have the right to go there if they wish, for the purpose of finding out what has transpired, what was debated and what was said.
I believe that whatever transitions the Senate may be facing, or not, as the case may be, over the next five or 10 years — whether there is a constitutional amendment at some point with respect to its composition or not, whether legislation is passed in the other place or in this place with respect to the term or with respect to some advisory referendum from which a Prime Minister might pick potential nominees — wherever that debate goes, this legislative body has a constitutional duty to keep on serving until such time as the Constitution is changed and/or the powers that be come to another decision about its purpose and goals.
I think a question that the committee may wish to consider is how best to go about doing that. I may be dismissed as naive and the new boy on the block who is not sufficiently protective of the institution, but certainly the quality of debate that I have seen in the chamber, the quality of exchange during Question Period, both when the present government was in opposition and when the present opposition was in government, was of a constructive and non- partisan nature, to everybody's credit. Actual information was exchanged, questions seeking real information were proposed. There was no lack of intellectual edge in the debate, but it was not always with a partisan or mean-spirited edge — something that I understand is harder to avoid in the other place because of the partisan pressures they face there.
It is my view that the legitimacy of this institution, therefore its capacity to serve, and its influence in the system would be at least protected, if not enhanced, if people had the right to tune in to watch a particular exchange or debate. Moreover, I do not think the institution has anything to hide. Whatever its strengths and weaknesses, they are a matter of public record and have been for many decades. To the contrary, the level of expertise that the senators bring to the debate from their lives outside of politics or before politics is so compelling that not to have that available to the public, should they choose to tune in, strikes me as us biting off our nose to spite our face in a very unconstructive fashion and for no reason.
I have looked at the extent to which the perception of the House of Lords, a body that has, in terms of its legitimacy and its means of appointment, at least as many challenges as we do, if not more. I remember Senator Kirby, when he spoke on his final day in the Senate, was kind enough to say that his kids in the gallery wished that this had been a hereditary institution. We do not have that burden. The House of Lords, I think, has significantly upgraded its standing amongst the voters in the United Kingdom by virtue of the fact that its debates are accessible and have been for a long time.
I understand that this committee must take a hard look at the costs that might be involved with regard to making the necessary technical changes in the chamber. I also understand that the broadcasters, for whom parliamentary broadcasting might not be the greatest source of profit, may have concerns about being asked to do more than they are now doing. From my perspective, colleagues, if this committee were, in its wisdom, to recommend that a signal be made available for whomever wishes to take it up, understanding that there may be none that chooses to take it up, in the most convenient and cost-efficient way over a staged period, beginning perhaps with some trial runs, Question Periods and other activities of the Senate, I would be delighted with the point of departure and initiative that that reflected.
I do not for one moment underestimate the cost issues. I know that Senate administration and table officers want to ensure that costs are managed responsibly and efficiently, and I would not want to add to that burden unduly except to say that access to the quality and to the content of debate strikes me as a legitimate right for voters and taxpayers to have. It is on that basis that I make the submission for the consideration of this committee.
The Chairman: Any questions, honourable senators? No one will challenge Senator Segal?
Senator Joyal: You mention, Senator Segal, the broadcasting of the debates in the House of Lords. I understand that they broadcast their committee meetings, too.
Senator Segal: Yes.
Senator Joyal: When they broadcast their proceedings in the chamber, is it broadcast in an edited form or in total? In other words, when it is put on the air, is the broadcast simultaneous or is it delayed, put on the air later, where only portions of the chamber's proceedings might be broadcast, dependent on what they believe to be the level of interest?
Senator Segal: I believe they have tried both approaches in their experimentation. I am not sure where they are as we speak, but I understand they have tried both.
Senator Joyal: I am not aware, not having been in Britain at the time. Also, I have never studied how they try to do it.
Senator Segal: On the BBC website, I have caught clips of debate in the House of Lords. For example, the very significant debate with respect to the application of extraordinary, anti-terrorist powers was a very difficult debate in the House of Lords where the House of Lords, I think, spoke out in a very determined way for civil liberties and for freedom of association. That was covered broadly by the U.K. networks because they had access to it. In our present circumstance, our networks do not have that access.
Senator Joyal: In other words, we would be interested to know more about where they are in terms of their experience, what they have tried and what is the conclusion, and so on, so that we could be informed on the way to approach it.
I share the idea that there are some debates in the Senate that the Canadian public should have access to, and I think of other debates, not because I have been personally involved, but I am thinking of the clarity bill, where debate has taken place for a long time in the Senate, and I think it was a thorough debate. I am thinking of the extradition debate, which lasted two months in the Senate, and there were interventions on both sides where the Canadian public could see the approach to issues that are different than that of the House of Commons. Let us take the proposed federal accountability act that will be reported sometime in the Senate where there will be precise points raised, and so on, which I think would be important for Canadians to see.
I am not saying I am against it, but at this point I have some questions. There are moments in the Senate when someone watching it on television would say, ``Nothing is happening there.'' That is why I am asking the question as to whether it goes out in an edited form. At the beginning people, will compare what they see in the Senate versus what they see in the House of Commons. I have no doubt that we can stand the comparison.
Where I have some concern is on the basis of some of the proceedings that are of less interest, especially when they are procedural. People think that procedure is a waste of time, but it is not, as we well know. It is important to frame a deliberative approach that includes conflicting views on issues. That is why I am trying to understand how it is done in the United Kingdom, so that we can learn from their experience before we move. Perhaps we should move step-by-step — in other words, start with some of the procedures and decide on the list which of the bills are of general interest and which are of less interest.
Senator Segal: It should not be difficult for Senate staff to produce a brief recording of the Lords' broadcast so that all senators would have a chance to look at it and assess what they thought was constructive and what they thought was otherwise.
Senator Joyal: Absolutely. I think that would be a way to approach it.
The Chairman: In terms of any debates and discussions that we have, but particularly on this one, any questions that arise that we do not have full answers for, we will look into getting them to the degree that is possible. That issue is a simple one, and we will get the details so that we can share them with everyone.
Senator Joyal: The other one might be the cost. I am looking at our colleague Senator Smith when we are talking about Aboriginal people; what are the costs involved, which I think is part of the equation that we have to address.
Then there is the other issue, which is the organization of the work in order to adapt to that, because I think that is part of the overall process.
The Chairman: All of that will be provided; if it is not sufficient, we will go back and get some more.
Senator Segal: I am informed that currently the House of Lords' debates take place between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m.; generally, they are broadcast on that basis. They are in an edited form. However, they have gone live for what they consider to be major debates when the country wanted to see it. In that jurisdiction, it was the House of Commons that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the televised world. The House of Lords showed leadership in that context.
The Chairman: The quickness of that answer speaks to the efficiency of our staff.
Senator Segal: Indeed.
Senator Andreychuk: What do you mean by ``editing'' — and by whom?
Senator Segal: Some of the non sequiturs that do not relate to the debate are removed so there is continuity. I do not think it is about subject matter; it is about making sure it is coherent as a broadcast. That is why it is not done on a live basis.
Senator Smith: Let me put one line of thinking in front of you and get you to react. Maybe one way of characterizing what some people feel about this place would be putting the best foot forward and comparing the committee work that the Senate does to that of the Commons. Having sat in both places, I think the committee work here is much stronger. I could give you examples of that, but I do not think it is in dispute.
Some of us are on this anti-terrorism committee at the moment. Yesterday, the House of Commons tabled a report, and to call it minimalist is generous. The only thing they did was extend for five years two provisions that had a sunset clause; however, probably 16 issues that we have identified that warrant some kind of study and discussion were not even mentioned. By contrast, our report will certainly represent due diligence and thorough review.
I regularly get feedback from Joe Average about having been channel flipping and seeing the Senate committees at work and having positive reactions.
I know some people are a little concerned about everything being carried; there have been occasions where the proceedings could be a surefire cure for insomnia. Also, attendance is not always what it should be and maybe this would result in some of us being strategic and sitting behind whoever is speaking and things like that.
Our Question Period will never have the drama that you get in the House of Commons, for reasons I do not even need to explain. I invite you to muse a bit and react to those thoughts.
Senator Segal: I do not disagree with any of those, senator. In fact, I would say that when the committees do outstanding work that produces, let us say, an amended document for debate in the Senate, it is a shame that the public does not have access to the very substantive debate that follows upon the excellent work done by our committees.
With respect to the attendance and how that may be portrayed by the cameras, I suspect that that will raise issues about the seating arrangement during debates in the Senate. In the case of the British Lords and Commons, they do not have desks and chairs. They have benches and people move around as necessary. It is not as rigid a seating plan as our own.
I am not suggesting that we embrace such an elaborate change, because of the cost involved. However, the notion that one would want to ensure that there were as many senators as possible when the broadcast was taking place relates to some of the other attendance pressures with which the whips have to deal on an ongoing basis. I would argue that, in and of itself, that is not a reason not to cover the institution.
In fact, to say that we do not want to cover the institution because attendance is not great would seem to play into the argument around legitimacy that I would have hoped televising would help us overcome, because we have nothing to hide. Often when attendance is not great, it is because senators are away on public business, or there are vacancies in the chamber or dispensation has been given for committees to meet while the Senate is sitting for some reason at a particular time.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: I agree with several of the comments that I have been made. Senator Joyal talked about the quality of the debates. I recall sitting in the chair when the committee was discussing the Clarity Act or the Nisga'a agreement and telling myself how unfortunate it was that Canadians were unable to witness this debate. On the other hand, I have also been in the chair at other times when I told myself that luckily, Canadians were not on hand to witness the proceedings. There are always two sides to everything.
Looking beyond structure and costs, the question is why do we want Senate proceedings to be televised? The answer is to give Canadians a look at this institution's services. I do not think this institution can be ignored any longer. Proceedings of legislatures across the country are now being televised.
What two roles is the Senate called upon to play? We need to focus on this question. The Senate plays a legislative role, and a representational role. We have talked a little about the legislative role, whether it be during Question Period or during debate.
When talking about the Senate's representational role, I would like us to remember statements by senators. This aspect of our work would prove interesting to Canadians and would give them an opportunity to see that the senators representing their region are in fact discussing regional issues. It remains to be seen how statements by senators could be included, quite apart from procedural concerns. However, this is something that should be considered.
We would need to look at how this could happen, while bearing in mind the roles that the Senate must play.
Committees play more of an investigative role. In fact, committee proceedings are already televised. As Senator Smith said, Canadians do pay attention to the work committees are doing. When I go back to New Brunswick, I am surprised at times when people say they saw me on television and compliment me on my work. Rarely do we get any compliments in Ottawa. But in New Brunswick, it is another matter.
Therefore, the Senate's representational role is important to Canadians.
Senator Segal: Female representation is high in the Senate, compared to the situation in the House of Commons. Francophone and Aboriginal minorities are also represented. In this regard, televising the proceedings could prove invaluable in terms of raising the general public's awareness of certain issues.
[English]
The Chairman: For the purposes of a question in my mind, I think when we are continuing this discussion, we should make sure to get the information as to how far the broadcasts would go, to find out if the interests that Senator Losier-Cool has talked about are reaching those regional areas. That is mainly a reminder to ourselves.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Some issues have already been raised. My concern is that these questions have no immediate answers. However, before we reach a decision, we must consider them. If I understand correctly, at present, only 20 hours of Senate proceedings, most committee debates, are televised.
However, not all committee proceedings are televised because of time constraints. Rarely are the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages broadcast. I still do not know why that is, but perhaps it has something to do with the availability of meeting rooms.
In your opinion, would the broadcasting of committee proceedings be adversely affected if Question Period, and possibly statements by senators, were televised? Many senators maintain that the bulk of the Senate's work is done in committee.
Senator Segal: I would hope not. Negotiations over the television coverage of committee meetings are scheduled to take place with Senate officials. If, in its wisdom, this committee proposed that sittings of the Senate chamber be televised, then I hope that there will be some discussion about adding more time to cover meetings. And if this involves additional costs or other tax implications, then we will need to consider them and subsequently reach a decision.
[English]
I would be upset if committee coverage were to suffer as a result of any decision to cover, for example, Question Period or other debates in the Senate. While I understand and respect the role of the parliamentary channel, the cable companies and others who provide, by and large, such great service to the country, the client would be the Parliament of Canada. The client should have the right to define the rules and parameters, which I know is easier said than done. I hope that, should we go forward, we would choose to do so in a way that would not in any way diminish the coverage of committees. I agree with you, senator, I would like to see more of such coverage as opposed to less.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: That is precisely what I wanted to discuss. That is what happens in the House of Commons. Coverage of certain questions asked and certain answers given is provided on the news. Much less is seen of committee meetings. Would it not be the same in the case of the Senate? The public may be tempted to tune in. Appearing on television — and we see this clearly in the case of the House of Commons — demands considerable preparation. Questions have to be logical. Some maintain that it is important to have a relevant 20-second clip that will be broadcast on the evening news. Question Period in the Senate could not be televised live because it is takes place at about the same time as Question Period in the House of Commons. That could create some problems and we would need to make some adjustments. Do you not think Canadians would lose interest in committees?
Senator Segal: We certainly cannot discount that possibility but in my opinion, circumstances will be dictated by what goes on in committee. For instance, if the ministers of Agriculture or Finance, or the President of the Bank of Canada, are appearing before a committee, the event will be looked upon as something new, even for a committee. If questions that are not particularly of interest are raised in the Senate, they may not make the news, but television coverage would still be available. I seriously doubt that some committees will lose out in terms of coverage because Question Period is more important. However, in a free society, the media ultimately decides what stories it wants to cover. Such decisions are beyond our control, not that we want to control them. However, to argue that not covering Senate proceedings ensures greater public interest in the work of our committees does not make a great deal of sense.
Senator Robichaud: As you know, we are subject to time constraints. We will need to negotiate with CPAC or with whatever other television network we decide to go with. Television coverage is generally limited to certain hours of the day. Members of the public will be able to watch Senate committee proceedings on television if they are awake during the night, that is around 2 a.m. or 3. a.m.
The decision must be ours to make. We cannot allow the media to decide what they want to do. Televising Question Period must be an important part of our proposal.
Senator Segal: I leave it up to the committee to decide whether it wants to recommend televising only one Question Period weekly, perhaps the Wednesday session. On other days, there will be no coverage. We can do what we want, except to say that the Senate chamber and Question Period is off limits. That would create other problems and we want to avoid that.
Senator Robichaud: I have no objections. When I sat in the House of Commons, the proceedings were televised in their entirety. However, Question Period was by far the high point of the day in the House of Commons, as far as the media was concerned.
Senator Segal: I do not dispute your analysis. If we decide to go ahead with this, it will be up to the people who will be negotiating the arrangements for us.
Senator Robichaud: You also say ``the public does not have access.'' Perhaps you really meant to say ``the public does not have enough access.'' Televising Question Period would be an additional means of access. At present, the public has access to all proceedings.
Senator Segal: To all written proceedings.
Senator Robichaud: Via the Internet.
Senator Segal: Someone in Moncton who wants to watch Question Period in the Senate on television in the afternoon cannot do that. It is up to our committee to decide whether current arrangements are adequate or not.
Senator Robichaud: This would give people another option. I have no major objections to going this route. Of course, there will be some adjustments to make. If we start off with Question Period, we may not be able to get through everything. We might have to change the order of business because if people constantly hear that consideration of an item has been deferred, they might think that senators do nothing. The House of Commons does things differently. I think we could make some changes as well.
Senator Segal: The leaders of the two parties could decide to hold a debate one afternoon on one of the key items on the agenda and to defer consideration of other items. An hour could be set aside for debate. You are quite right to say that television will put some pressure on Senators.
I have no objections to these proposals. However, in your opinion, are they not putting negative pressure on us, in terms of our responsibility to the general public?
Senator Robichaud: I do not think these proposals are negative. You have suggested that party leaders should decide. Is that really how you want things to be?
Senator Segal: I am the junior senator at this table. I was always told that important decisions were made by the leaders of the main parties in the Senate. If I am wrong about this, I will gladly welcome your expert advice.
Senator Robichaud: I was simply making a point.
[English]
The Chairman: I suspect that the members of the Senate will have a lot to say about this issue, including the leadership.
Senator Keon: I would support, in principle, that this matter be looked at carefully. In view of the comments of Senator Joyal and others, I also have not had any exposure to politics in my life. I have been a scientist. My experience with university life and as a CEO of an institution tells me that before we embark on anything like this we must look for expert advice as to the positive and negative aspects of it. We should seek out a careful analysis of what should be televised and what should not be televised. As well, we would need a careful outline of process and the implementation plan, if we indeed get to the ultimate point.
I am not suggesting that there is not a tremendous amount of collective wisdom in the Senate. There are people like Senators Smith, Segal and others who have tremendous experience with how to use the media and so forth. Nonetheless, I am not sure that we are well served by sitting around here as a committee trying to define a strategy, a process and so forth. I think we need some expert help.
The Chairman: Senator Segal may wish to make a comment. However, I can assure Senator Keon that it is the intent of this committee to look at this in a finely tuned manner. We will certainly engage all those who we feel would be able to help us make a decision.
I would be happy to receive suggestions from any one of our colleagues as to whom they feel would be able to impart some wisdom to us that would help us make the right decision at the end. I will discuss this with my colleagues on the steering committee, but I will likely suggest that we send a notice to all senators inviting them to participate and, as well, to submit names of those who they feel can make a useful contribution to this debate. I will make that commitment to you, Senator Keon.
Senator Joyal: If we are to have a structured approach to the broadcasting of the workings of the Senate, it should be to express what distinguishes the Senate from the House of Commons. To try to approach broadcasting on the mere basis of mirroring what happens in the House of Commons is essentially to overpoliticize the debate.
We know exactly what happened in the House of Commons. The journalists watch Question Period with an eye to the argument of the day and the 15-second clips, which will become the tabloid headlines of the next morning. That is part of the ``political game,'' and it is fair.
However, the nature of the Senate is not based on that. The nature of the Senate is to delve deeper into the substance of issues and to try to do it in a more collegial way. That is where the Senate shines, either in its deliberative function or in its policy study function.
As many senators around this table know, when we are satisfied with our work it is because we have done it in that context. When there is too much bickering, we feel uneasy. Perhaps that is because we are not elected or because we do not feel the pressure to grandstand and to show that we were there. That, to me, is an essential and positive characteristic of the Senate. It does not mean that during some of our deliberative functions the allegiance aspect does not factor in.
If the latter were our approach to broadcasting, then I think that would change the nature of the upper chamber in our Westminster-style Parliament. That is why I am interested to see how the Lords have done it. It is important to take that into account.
The second element to take into account is, as Senator Losier-Cool has mentioned, that there are angles from which we approach issues. Those angles are from the minority point of view. We reflect better the compositional nature of the Canadian society. There are more women, more Aboriginals and more diversity in the Senate than in the other place, because of the electoral system that we have. Regional issues are an important element of our discussions, such as matters pertaining to the fisheries and so forth.
With regard to foreign policy, we go deeper than just the mere answer to the question of whether or not we should stay or go in a certain country. You know that, Senator Segal, being chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Our approach is more in terms of the broader commitment of Canada to international institutions and so on.
It seems to me that the broadcasting approach to the workings of the Senate should take that into account. I will oversimplify to make my point. It is not to say, from here on in, it is Question Period. Who will shoot and score? Who will succeed in having his or her clips broadcast as opposed to the clips of the House of Commons? We know how news is packaged. It will be the harshest encounter that will make it to the news.
As you recognize yourself, that will change the nature of our approach. We have to be conscious that if we want to outline what we do best, or that we exist and are part of the political process, then we must show that our part is played in a different manner of the political process.
Senator Segal: If that were the nature of the recommendation that came from the committee, I would be delighted. I have no difficulty with the notion of saying that there are qualitative and substantive differences to the way the Senate considers issues, and those differences should be reflected in the way in which coverage is invited and designed. I have no difficulty with that at all.
Senator Andreychuk: I think there are marked differences not only between here and the House of Commons but between here and the House of Lords. In my opinion, we are dramatically different, and we should note those differences.
My concern is with regard to the management of this issue. Traditionally, this is something that we would put into the hands of our leadership. We have organized ourselves on a party basis with leadership.
Over the years, we have chipped away at what I call the independence of senators. You raised the point of which committees are broadcast and which ones are not broadcast. That determination does not seem to be a consensus of the Senate; it is a consensus of the leadership. I once thought that I would have control over many of the decisions that are made only to find out that I do not have that control because so many of them have been slowly eroded away. I do not see how we could manage the entire process without delegating it to the leadership, which, in my opinion, would politicize it and chip away at the independence of the Senate.
I would like to see a reflection of the full consequence. On the surface, we would say that the caucuses would rule, but in practice we know that does not happen. The fundamental issue is: How much more control will the individual senator take? Some of us have a different style of Senate participation than others. Some senators go out of their way not to cultivate the press, while others do not do that. Women work differently before the press and audiences than do men. There are many differences that we should understand before we a determination on this matter is made. I do not want to move on an act of faith that it will all work out — and I want to put that on the record.
As to how we do the work, I would hope that staff and researchers could identify the major issues to be addressed, whether leadership, comparisons, et cetera, and then compile a list of witnesses that could help the committee in its deliberations of those areas before it comes to a conclusion. The matter should be studied to give us an opportunity to reflect on what our respective caucuses are doing for us. This kind of study brings with it a good spinoff, one that goes beyond simply the issue of televising the proceedings of the upper chamber. I would support a plan that puts forth the issues and develops a list of appropriate witnesses to assist the committee in its deliberations on the matter. We can contribute to that.
The Chairman: I want to refer colleagues to the excellent report prepared by Mr. Robertson, Researcher, Library of Parliament. Any and all suggestions to move this forward in a positive manner will be considered. I will endeavour to ensure that the committee reviews the proceedings of the chamber. On an issue of this nature that affects each of our colleagues, the committee will ensure that all opinions are heard. It might take a little longer, Senator Segal, than you might wish, but the committee will give this a thorough hearing.
Senator Cordy: We have had a good beginning to the discussion this morning and committee members are being open-minded to the issue. I thank Senator Segal for bringing this issue to the floor of the Senate and to this committee because the time has come for senators to have a full discussion on it.
I was asked by the media the day that you brought forward this issue to the Senate how I felt about it. I said at the time that I was not sure. I had concerns about the 15 minutes of fame that people look for in the House of Commons. I would hate to have that happen in the Senate, because of the positive aspects of the Senate that have been spoken to today. Many of us have sat through some wonderful discussions in the chamber, but because we do not always know that they will be wonderful discussions, we cannot necessarily plan ahead what will be televised from the Senate. At times, it simply happens that the spontaneous debates are what we do extremely well.
I do not like to say that there is never any partisanship in the Senate because there is, but, certainly, there is less partisanship in the Senate than there is in the House of Commons. Many people have told me that when they appeared before the Social Affairs Committee they could not discern which party each senator represented. That is a positive comment about the Senate.
As Senator Keon and Senator Kirby have both said in this respect, it is important to look at this deeply and to not rush it. When you bring something forward in the Senate, it is only natural to want it dealt with as quickly as possible, but it is important for us to look at this carefully. A number of issues have been brought forward this morning that need a depth of discussion. Perhaps it would benefit committee members to talk to members of the House of Lords, who are dealing with this issue. We have not even looked at the financial aspect of televising the proceedings, so that too will have to be dealt with. Thank you for bringing this forward, Senator Segal.
Senator Segal: The motion came from a presentation that I made to undergraduates at Queen's University. The class was the equivalent of political science 101. Their professor had given them Senator Joyal's remarkable book on the Senate to do their homework, which they had completed. I spoke to the Senate reports that had been done over the years long before I arrived at this place and how important they were for public policy. After a series of questions, a bright young woman said, ``I can see the House of Commons debates on television; why cannot I watch the proceedings of the Senate chamber?'' I had a philosophical answer but not a structured answer for her. This committee will take the time to reflect on the modalities and proprieties of that, and I will be forever grateful. That young undergraduate can feel good about the fact that her question to me is now being considered by a very distinguished group of people.
The Chairman: Colleagues, I am sure you would agree that we should express our gratitude to Senator Segal not only for initiating this process but also for the great witness he has been this morning. We have gone a little over the time you had made available to us, and I thank you for that.
Unless there are pressing questions, there only remains for me to thank all who participated this morning in this very interesting process undertaken by the committee.
The committee adjourned.