Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence, November 14, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedure and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:30 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, for an organization meeting.
[Translation]
Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. As Clerk of the committee, it is my duty to oversee the election of a chair.
[English]
Are there any nominations to that effect?
Senator Smith: I would like to nominate Senator Keon to be the chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
Mr. Armitage: Are there any other nominations? I see no other nominations. Is it agreed, honourable senators, that Senator Keon take the chair?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: Senator Keon, will you please take the chair?
Senator Wilbert J. Keon (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It is a wonderful honour to chair such a large committee with so many outstanding people. I look forward to your help. I am not a parliamentarian but I am enjoying my time with you.
The second item is the election of the deputy chair. I would like to move the nomination of Senator Smith to the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
Senator Angus: Are you questioning whether the chair can make a motion?
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Senator Angus: I would be happy to make that motion to clear up any misunderstanding. I think it might be better from a procedural point of view, chair, if you have no objection.
The Chair: In the last committee I sat on this was the procedure. However, I certainly do not want to do anything that would not be entirely within the rules at my initial committee meeting.
Senator Angus: I would be happy to move that Senator Smith be elected as the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 3 concerns the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, composed of the chair, the deputy chair and one other designated member of the committee. We need a nomination.
Senator Robichaud: We do not need a nomination. It is for consultation, is it not?
Senator Corbin: We assume there was consultation. You were on the subcommittee in the previous session. Would you agree to sit again as the third member of the subcommittee?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
Senator Corbin: I propose Senator Robichaud for the number 3 spot.
Senator Angus: It is not a name and it should be a name.
Senator Cordy: It does not ask for a name.
Senator Fraser: I will be glad to twist Senator Robichaud's arm. I think that is usually why the third person is left a bit open, so there is some flexibility to fill in for that person if that senator is absent for any reason,.
Senator Corbin: It has nothing to do with being absent. He becomes a bona fide member of the group that orders the agenda and other matters.
Senator Cordy: But the next motion is just that we have a standing committee. It has nothing to do with who would be on it, if I read it correctly — and I am not a lawyer. It just says that that we have a subcommittee. It does not ask for a name.
Senator Grafstein: Normally what happens is that this motion is passed and sometimes some side says that person is designated as such. Then it reads the motion and names the designated person as the member of the standing committee. It is one, two.
Senator Cordy: Yes, but first we have to pass this motion to form the subcommittee.
Senator Corbin: I move the motion.
The Chair: All those in favour of the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Now can we deal with the name of the person to fill this position?
Senator Smith: I think we can because it was my understanding from the leaders of our party that we would maintain the status quo.
Senator Cordy: I nominate Senator Robichaud to be the third person on the subcommittee.
The Chair: Are there any other nominations? All those in favour of the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Robichaud has moved the motion on item number 4, the motion to print the committee's proceedings. All those in favour of the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The next motion is authorization to hold meetings and print evidence when quorum is not present. Pursuant to rule 89, I need a motion.
Senator Fraser: I so move.
The Chair: It is suggested that we have members from both the government and opposition as part of the motion. Are you comfortable with that, Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: I assumed that I was moving the motion as printed.
Senator Corbin: I know that is a standard motion, but may I put a question to the clerk as to whether that situation has ever arisen in the past.
Mr. Armitage: For the taking of evidence, yes.
Senator Corbin: Thank you.
The Chair: Item 6 concerns the financial report. We need a motion that the committee adopt the draft of the first report prepared in accordance with rule 104. The clerk has the report.
Mr. Armitage: The report has been circulated.
Senator Smith: I am happy to move that motion.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Senator Corbin: I have a question with respect to the fifth report. Will there be a follow up on the request for funds to pursue travel up North to study the use of Aboriginal languages in the Senate?
The Chair: Yes, in fact, I thought we would have a brief discussion on that issue today, time allowing. It is one of two items.
Mr. Armitage: Is it agreed?
Senator Corbin: I move the adoption of the report.
The Chair: Thank you. All those in favour of the adoption of the report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 7 concerns research staff. The committee asks the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee: that the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel as necessary; that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts that may be required; and that the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies.
Senator Cordy: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The next item on the agenda concerns the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. It states:
That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act and Section 7, Chapter 3.06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the Clerk of the Committee; and
That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act and Section 8, Chapter 3.06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the Committee be conferred individually on the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the Clerk of the Committee.
All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The next motion is travel. It states:
That the Committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the Committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the Committee.
Do I have a motion?
Senator Fraser: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item number 10 applies to the designation of members travelling on committee business. The motion is that the committee empower the steering committee to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on ``official business'' for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the Committee to be on ``official business'' if that member is: (a) attending a function, event or meeting related to the work of the Committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the Committee.
Senator Corbin: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I have a question concerning item number 10 and the fact that the steering committee can consider or designate a member as being is on official committee business.
[English]
When is it reported by the subcommittee to the main committee that a senator is on committee business? It should be reported but no such reports appear before any committees. The subcommittee reports would include who must travel on committee business, given that it determines who can travel.
The Chair: Would you prefer that the report be made before the travel has occurred?
Senator Robichaud: I simply want to ensure that all committee members are aware of what is happening and that there is no requirement for anyone who does that kind of business to present a report to the committee. It should be reported at the earliest convenience so that all members know what is happening.
Senator Fraser: Mr. Chair, I move that when the steering committee has designated a member as being on official business, as stated in the motion we just adopted, that a report of that decision be made to the full committee at the next meeting of the committee.
The Chair: We have a new motion on the table. Is there discussion?
Senator Joyal: I agree.
Senator Fraser: The idea is to ensure that the committee is notified as soon as possible.
Senator Corbin: I tend to not support this because it simply seems to satisfy a requirement of paragraph 8(3)(a) respecting attendance of senators and has nothing to do with this committee. It is simply to indicate to the Clerk of the Senate and his staff that on a certain date, a senator was on official committee business.
Senator Robichaud: If I may, the second paragraph of that motion says:
2) consider any member of the Committee to be on ``official business'' if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the Committee; or
I would like to know what event and what meeting in relation to the work of the committee. It is that simple.
The Chair: I would think so. I would think a committee member could miss a committee meeting or could miss attendance in the Senate because he or she is on official Senate business. However, it might have nothing to do with this committee. If it has something to do with the committee, then it would be wise to report it as soon as possible to the committee.
Senator Cordy: I happen to think it is a great idea that the committee knows what the business is, what the meeting is. It does not have to be a two-page document but simply that the senator attended a seminar or a meeting or spoke on behalf of the committee. Since this is the Rules Committee, how would we bring this forward so that it would be in place for all committees? This is not the time to discuss it but perhaps the matter could be considered another day.
The Chair: We could consider that item for future business.
We have a motion on the table and I asked for discussion. Is there further discussion of the motion?
Senator Corbin: Is it item number 10?
The Chair: No, the question is on Senator Fraser's motion on reporting.
Senator Angus: Senator Corbin did not convince her to withdraw it.
Senator Fraser: With some trepidation, I say. As between my two esteemed colleagues I have to choose which one I side with and I side with Senator Robichaud.
Senator Corbin: I trust the members of the subcommittee to make decisions on this matter. We empower them under motion number 3 and so I do not think we should come back on it. That is a matter of opinion.
The Chair: We have a motion on the table. I would ask for a show of hands in favour of the motion. Four in favour. Those opposed to the motion. None.
Senator Angus: Those abstaining?
The Chair: One, two, three.
The motion is carried.
Let us move to item 11 on travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
Senator Corbin: There is no partisanship on this committee.
Senator Joyal: Point of order. We have voted the motion but did we vote the motion on number 10?
The Chair: Yes, we did so, Senator Joyal.
We have a motion from Senator Smith on item 11. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We have item 12, moved by Senator Robichaud. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Corbin: Have the deliberations of this committee ever been televised, videotaped or otherwise?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Corbin: On what occasion?
The Chair: The committee was videotaped when we heard testimony from the House of Lords in Britain. That committee was studying conflict of interest.
Senator Corbin: Was it only the one meeting?
Senator Fraser: No, there were several meetings.
Senator Corbin: I attended a number of meetings on conflict of interest and I do not recall seeing any cameras.
The Chair: We now have item 13 on the time slots for regular meetings. The meetings are held on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. and Wednesday at 12 noon.
Senator Joyal: I so move.
Mr. Armitage: It is just for information purposes.
Senator Smith: That is the agreed upon slot.
Senator Robichaud: If I may, 12 noon sometimes cuts close to caucus meetings. I would urge the chair to have a bit of flexibility when senators from one party are held up in caucus. I am not saying for one hour but sometimes it takes up to 15 minutes, if that would be agreeable to members.
Senator Angus: Are you talking about 12 noon as opposed to 12:15?
Senator Smith: That has always been understood.
The Chair: We would have an understanding about that with both sides represented. It is moved by Senator Joyal. All those in favour.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: In camera transcripts is item 14.
Senator Corbin: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We have item 15 next.
Senator Angus: It is at $9,000. I so move.
Senator Fraser: Do we have three zeros with that figure?
The Chair: We thought we should raise two items very briefly. They will probably have to be dealt with at a subsequent meeting since they are carry-overs.
The first item is the reinstatement of certain bills. A number of people are anxious that we move forward on some of these items. There is resistance to this from some people, but I do not think there is very much. It seems that one particular bill has been around for a very long time. Since the document was carefully prepared and approved previously and so forth, it would seem to me that we could just bring it forth and get on with it.
Senator Angus: To which document are you referring?
Mr. Armitage: It was a report of the committee. It is referred to in the 104 report in front of you. It was a set of rules drafted by the committee and reported to the Senate. It was on the agenda of the Senate and had commenced debate, but debate had not concluded and a decision had not been taken.
If the committee wants to put it back before the Senate for consideration, it would take that draft report, look at it, decide whether it was good as it was or needed changes and report back to the Senate.
The Chair: If there is any discomfort around the table, we could raise the issue at the next meeting.
Senator Corbin: In the meantime, could documents be distributed?
The Chair: Yes, we will circulate the documents.
Senator Fraser: We did give careful consideration to this matter, and I thought it was a good report. Now, there are some new members of the committee who obviously have full rights to see it. Might I ask that we distribute that report to all members of the committee and consider it at our next meeting? I would be in favour of reintroducing that report. I have no idea how colleagues will turn, but I would like to at least give it accelerated consideration.
The Chair: We will do that, Senator Fraser.
Mr. Armitage: The other question was Senator Corbin's motion with respect to Aboriginal languages.
The Chair: Yes, there is also some urgency about the issue of Aboriginal people being able to speak in their own language in the Senate. I will ask Senator Corbin to speak to it briefly. If we dabble with this, some senators may be retired before the process is in place.
Senator Corbin: This issue goes back some three years when I made a motion in the Senate to allow our colleagues who speak Inuktitut to make speeches in their mother tongue on the floor of the Senate. I did not go so far as to suggest that to be the practice in committees, but I understand that translation is sometimes provided in committees for witnesses who do not speak any other language.
The thing is, this committee has studied and examined the issue on a number of occasions, over two different Parliaments and a number of sessions. It has been brought up, and all members of the committee, as far as I know, subscribe to the general idea.
An estimate was made of how much this could cost. Of course, that depends on the way people look at the issue. After in-depth consideration, the committee decided on the proviso that the Senate would approve a request for funding and that it would go up North and visit one or two localities. The committee was to view and discuss with the local legislative assemblies in Nunavut, and I think the other one was Yellowknife.
Senator Smith: Yes, but Nunavut seems to be the primary location.
Senator Corbin: Yes, the Nunavut assembly provides translation in a number of languages, as I understand it.
That is where the issue was when Parliament was prorogued. I think the chair can confirm that he would have been prepared to go up North sometime this fall when the legislative assemblies were sitting. That is where the question sits.
I think that for the benefit of our new colleagues, a summary of the issue could be prepared and released.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Since a certain amount of work has already been done in so far as the use of Inuktitut is concerned, I propose that at our next meeting, after notifying all of the members, the committee not wait for an order of reference from the Senate, which would delay it even further, and authorize this trip, all the more so given that we can initiate action without an order of reference. We will work more effectively if we can proceed with this mission right away.
[English]
Senator Corbin: Mr. Chair, with your permission that is why I did not bring the whole matter in for a third-time motion of reference; I think the committee is well possessed of the issues at stake. It is near some sort of finality and is ready to report to the Senate.
In support of the argument raised by Senator Robichaud, I think the committee has the power, and indeed, I would certainly be pleased if the committee would continue its active study of this matter.
The Chair: Thank you both. Senator Smith has put quite a lot of time into this.
Senator Smith: Yes, I am supportive of the discussion so far. For our new members, we had canvassed all of the members of the Senate who have varying degrees of Aboriginal background, and it is either six or seven senators who do.
There were members who did not feel they would make much use of the service, but they would have been quite satisfied in a situation where on reasonable notice, if they had people visiting from their community, we would have an interpreter in a language other than Inuktitut. All non-Inuktitut senators were satisfied with such an arrangement. We talked about seeing whether or not we could find an interpretation agency that could do the job on contract so there was not a need to hire an army of people as employees.
With the two senators whose mother tongue is Inuktitut, we were intent on a trial period of translation in the main chamber.
It was decided that the legislature with the most experience is Nunavut. We would have gone there, and the money was in the budget. We need the necessary motion to have that money restored, and then we will direct the planning committee to identify a suitable time when we can go on this trip that has been planned for some period of time. Our colleagues are very anxious for us to continue moving on this.
Senator Angus: Does this committee have a general mandate? Does this particular issue fall within the general mandate, or did I understand you to say there is a separate mandate from the Senate to do this study and it would be redundant to go back?
Senator Smith: We did get legal advice on whether there was a legal obligation, and in a nutshell, we were advised that there is no legal requirement but also nothing was preventing us from doing it, if we thought it was the right thing to do.
Senator Corbin: Is that what you meant by mandate?
Senator Angus: No, I thought in these committees the chair goes to the Senate and gives a notice of motion, and then the next day he gives the motion that the committee will study whatever it studies. I have noticed that there is a general language used in most committees.
Senator Fraser: This committee is different.
Senator Angus: That is why I am asking.
Senator Fraser: The rules say that this committee is empowered on its own initiative to propose amendments to the rules, from time to time — propose, not make — to examine things upon reference from the Senate and, more generally, to consider orders and customs of the Senate and privileges of Parliament.
Senator Angus: That is within the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Fraser: Yes, that is rule 86 (1)(f) (i), (ii) and (iii).
Senator Angus: We do not need empowerment to do these things?
Senator Corbin: They originally came here on motion from the Senate. The reference came from the Senate itself.
Senator Smith: It was agreed unanimously that this was the appropriate committee to deal with it.
Senator Angus: Second, with this particular study up North, does the whole committee go, or was there a subcommittee?
Senator Smith: Everyone who wanted to go could go. We are not force-feeding.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: However, the committee would need to give itself a mandate to pursue this work by moving a motion to that effect. Correct? It is a matter of procedure. Could we do that today, or must we wait until our next meeting and mention this in the notice of meeting sent out to all committee members?
[English]
Senator Smith: As you are curious to understand this, one of the reasons we want to go to Nunavut is this happened many years ago in the Northwest Territories and Yellowknife. There were, I believe, interpreters for eight Aboriginal languages, and the manpower was excessive. Some cynics thought perhaps it was a make-work project for friends and things like that. Eventually it was scaled down to address the need, but not in the most cost-effective way, whereas I think it is generally agreed that Nunavut did it in a cost-effective way. That is why we spoke to all the non-Inuktitut speaking people who might use it from time to time, and they were satisfied with the fact that it might be two weeks notice if they wanted to use it at a particular time. We would then have an appropriate person, and that could be done cost-effectively. That is why we decided to go to Nunavut. There are two members of the Senate whose mother language is Inuktitut, and they speak it all the time. That is some background to the issue.
Senator Angus: You are referring to Senator Adams and Senator Watt.
Senator Corbin: Just a finale to this exchange. The motion has no intention of eventually providing services for the various other languages in Canada. We are strictly speaking of native languages, so this would not apply to immigrants to Canada. It is strictly concentrated on First Nations.
Senator Smith: We also had some dialogue, not carved in stone that the committee where we might have the trial was the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans because apparently there were instances where members from that community might need those services from time to time. We were open-minded on that and we will explore it. We will deal with first things first.
Senator Corbin: The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples also has opportunities.
Senator Smith: Yes, but the Fisheries Committee was the one they prioritized.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Chairman, before you introduce a motion in the Senate to request the budget adopted in May in the fifth report, would it not be appropriate for you to canvass individual members of the committee to inquire if they are interested in being part of that investigative mission? You may find only two or three senators interested in going up North. Before asking for so many thousand dollars from the Senate, it would be probably wiser to request the budget for the number of senators who wish to go. There are many senators on our membership list, but I am not sure that all of them will want to attend the investigative study mission. Perhaps you could inquire in the forthcoming days, and that would give you the size of the budget to request from the chamber.
The Chair: That is a very good suggestion, Senator Joyal. We will do that and bring it back here for approval.
Senator Corbin: Even though they are not members of this committee, they are senators, and I would suggest that we invite Senator Watt and Senator Adams to come along.
Senator Smith: That is what we did last time. They were included.
Senator Corbin: Perhaps Senator Sibbeston, who speaks a number of Indian languages, should also come.
The Chair: Technically, they have to belong to the committee, correct.
Senator Fraser: Yes, that is true but they could be substituted in.
Senator Corbin: There are ways around it.
Mr. Armitage: I am sorry to take up your time, senators. I want to say that James Robertson, who has been the Library of Parliament researcher supporting this committee for the last few sessions, has been asked to take on other duties. Jack Stilborn, whom you may remember, was in service to you in this committee and in others. He has agreed to take over Mr. Robertson's responsibilities, for which I am grateful, because Mr. Stilborn has a high degree of experience. As well, Michel Bédard, who started working with James Robertson, will continue with his relationship as well.
The Chair: I want to come back to Senator Robichaud's suggestion that we bring this back formally to the next meeting of the committee. The intent was to raise these two matters today so they could be dealt with expeditiously at the next meeting.
Senator Smith: We can have the clerk prepare the appropriate motion.
Senator Corbin: They can provide documents for our colleagues.
Mr. Armitage: It is agreed that both of these items are now before the committee and that we are to bring them formally to the committee at the next meeting with the proper notice and everything else.
Senator Corbin: Does that give our colleagues sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the works?
Senator Angus: Absolutely.
Senator Corbin: It will be weekend reading.
Senator Angus: As long as it is not in a native language or Gaelic.
Senator Fraser: On another but similar matter, chair, the fourth report in the last session dealt with questions of privilege and points of order. I wonder if we could turn our attention to reviving that report on questions of privilege. Senators will recall, for example, that our rules now have two extremely different procedures, one of which I gather is still in there by inadvertence, and that surely is something that a Rules Committee ought to be capable of recommending changes to. If we could bring back the fourth report and attempt to move it on again, I would be grateful.
Senator Corbin: Why not bring back the sixth report?
Mr. Armitage: It was agreed, senator. That is the reinstatement of bills.
Senator Corbin: The report was debated but not adopted by the Senate.
Mr. Armitage: However, it was agreed by this committee to bring that forward.
Senator Corbin: It is dead now. You would have to resurrect that item.
Mr. Armitage: The committee will take it back in front of itself and if it agrees on its contents, report back to the Senate to put it back before it.
The Chair: Okay. That is understood. Is there any other business?
We have a motion for adjournment.
Senator Angus: The meeting will be at 9:30 on Tuesday morning; is that correct?
The Chair: Yes.
The committee adjourned.