Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 7 - Evidence - June 10, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-33, An Act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, met this day at 12:06 p.m. to give consideration to the bill and to examine and report upon the national security policy of Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: This is the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Due to the shortage of time, I will forgo the usual introductions and get down to business right away.
Senator Banks: I would like to propose that we briefly discuss matters of committee business pursuant to the committee's special study on the national security policy of Canada.
I move that:
Notwithstanding the motion adopted on March 2, 2009, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of five members: the Chair, Deputy Chair and three additional members to be appointed after the usual consultations.
I am moving that the steering committee be five members and not three members.
The Chair: There is a motion on the floor.
Senator Tkachuk: This is new business.
Senator Banks: It is business having to do with the special study. It is a motion to establish the steering committee of this committee to be five members and not three members.
Senator Tkachuk: We already have a committee; we have this committee. We have a steering committee.
Senator Banks: I will read my motion again.
Senator Wallin: No, we heard the motion.
Senator Banks: Then I call the question.
Senator Wallin: I am sorry. I think there needs to be some notice of these structural changes.
The Chair: The question has been called.
Senator Tkachuk: I think there should be time for debate.
The Chair: If you have something to say, Senator Tkachuk, please go ahead.
Senator Tkachuk: I do have something to say. We have a steering committee. We had no notice of this motion. It is a significant motion. I think there should be time for debate and I think that time for debate should be at the next meeting of the committee. If the senator wishes to bring it forth at the next meeting, we will have time for debate and the senator will show respect for his colleagues.
When you bring significant motions like this to the committee, Senator Banks, we have the right to have time to study the matter, to look at it and to see its significance without it being railroaded through the committee.
Senator Banks: I am not proposing to railroad anything.
Senator Tkachuk: You called the question.
Senator Wallin: To continue on Senator Tkachuk's point, these occurrences seem to be all too common: Issues are simply raised and put on the table without any notice. This motion is not on an agenda. The members of this committee have not been consulted. The steering committee has not been consulted. We have not had a steering committee meeting for several months. It would be helpful if these things were discussed in a way that was acceptable to the steering committee members.
We attempted to have a meeting this week but we could not find a convenient time. Again, other issues were raised informally in the chamber. We were seeking answers on certain items before we went ahead with any other meetings.
If you are to propose key structural changes, there should be some kind of case made in advance so that we can go to the officials of the Senate. We could get advice and we could see what precedents there are for this motion. We could study the matter and see whether we think it is useful, on a committee this size, to have the steering committee of almost the same size.
These things are big steps; they set precedents. As Senator Tkachuk has said, these are questions of respect for your colleagues, as fellow senators. It is a matter of respect that we have these discussions in an intelligent, informed manner and then have a reasonable debate.
Senator Day: I heard the motion to increase the steering committee, which is a creature of the overall committee and a body to which we determine whether we wish to delegate certain matters for administrative purposes. The overall body's control of what is happening will continue.
I also heard in the motion that the expansion would be done after "the usual consultations,'' which would include both party and whip consultations. I do not see anything wrong with proceeding with the motion at this time.
Senator Manning: I do not have a problem with the motion Senator Banks has put forward. I would just like to know what is happening; to come into the committee and propose a motion without any detail on why. For example, is there a problem with three members on the committee? Are the three members not doing their work?
When you ask to increase the committee from three to five members, will the enlarged committee include the chair and deputy chair?
Senator Banks: Yes.
Senator Manning: If there is a problem with the committee as it stands, the first thing we should do is get rid of the chair and deputy chair and form a new committee. If we have a problem with the three, we will still have a problem with them, will we not?
I would like to have some explanation as to why this motion came before us today to go from three members to five members without any notice or consultation. I realize that we will have consultations with the leaders in the Senate. I guess the consultation would be about which people would be added to the committee. It is not necessarily consultation about why we are going from three to five members.
As a member of the committee, I would like to know if there is a reason for the motion being put forward today. As a member of the entire committee, I would like to know what is happening. I find it frustrating when you come with an off-the-cuff motion. I could come in next week saying to cut it back to four. There must be a reason.
Is there a problem with the steering committee and what would be solved by going from three to five members?
Senator Banks: You have hit it on the head, senator. Your solution is probably half right, but my motion does not contemplate ditching the deputy chair or the chair.
First, this motion is properly before the committee.
Senator Wallin: Is it?
Senator Tkachuk: Is it?
Senator Banks: Yes. Sorry, I believe that it is properly before the committee. If I did not believe so, I would not have moved it. I believe the question of our special study is, first, always before us and, second, I think it was referred to specifically in the notice today.
I believe the motion is properly before us.
It is not correct that we have not had a steering committee for years. We have had many steering committee meetings
Senator Tkachuk: For months.
Senator Mitchell: Yes, you did.
Senator Banks: Yes, for months. We have had many steering committee meetings in the past few months.
Senator Wallin, you are indicating no. Have we not had steering committee meetings in the last few months?
Senator Mitchell: Are you serious?
Senator Wallin: We did not have one yesterday, this month, not in the month of May.
Senator Banks: We have had several steering committee meetings.
Senator Wallin: We have not had a meeting since January.
Senator Banks: Yesterday, Senator Kenny and I waited for half an hour behind the Senate for you. You came to what was to be a steering committee meeting and you left it. No meeting could be held because you left, not wanting to deal with the matters that were properly before the steering committee.
Senator Wallin: I will respond to that in a moment.
Senator Banks: I know you will. The fact is that when one of the members of the steering committee decides not to be available for its meetings, or comes to the beginning of a meeting and then leaves so that such a meeting cannot happen, then we have to do something about it.
What I propose to do about it is see that there should be a steering committee, of this committee, of five members. This committee can properly determine how many people it wants to have on its steering committee; it cannot have fewer than three based on the Rules. However, it can have as many as it chooses.
I want to remind members that, for many years, the steering committee of this committee never made a single decision with respect to recommending witnesses, business, budgets or any of those other things. Those decisions were all made by the committee as a whole. All of the committee sat down and made those decisions at all times.
Since we will have a steering committee, it needs to be a committee that functions. If one of the members of the steering committee does not show up or leaves the meeting before it begins, that committee does not function.
Senator Tkachuk: How many times has this happened?
Senator Banks: Once.
Senator Mitchell: Well, more than that.
Senator Wallin: No, once.
Senator Tkachuk: He said once. He has moved the motion.
The Chair: I have Senator Meighen next on the first round. Order, please.
Senator Mitchell: She is not allowing this committee to work.
The Chair: Order, please.
Senator Wallin: We will comment on the facts.
Senator Tkachuk: He did not want to work with me, either.
Senator Mitchell: We have two opinions of that —
The Chair: Order, order.
Senator Tkachuk: Chair, first of all, dog gone it, chair!
The Chair: Senator Meighen has the floor.
Senator Tkachuk: On a point of order: First, we were given no notice of this motion. This motion is irrelevant to the agenda. It concerns the constitution of the committee; it does not concern the study on security and defence. We do not know what is quorum. If we go to five members, do all five have to show up for a steering committee? Is it three out of five? What is it?
The Chair: This is not a time to explain the rules to you. You have not made a point of order.
Senator Tkachuk: I have made a point of order.
The Chair: Senator Meighen has the floor.
Senator Tkachuk: I made a point of order. I am calling the point of order.
The Chair: Senator Meighen has the floor.
Senator Tkachuk: I am calling the point of order.
The Chair: Senator Meighen has the floor.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like the point of order dealt with. It has precedence.
The Chair: I am sorry. You did not make any point.
Senator Tkachuk: My point of order is that it is not on the agenda.
The Chair: It does not have to be on the agenda.
Senator Tkachuk: We were not given notice, and it is not part of the agenda you have here.
The Chair: I am sorry.
Senator Tkachuk: No, you have to deal with it, chair.
The Chair: I am not.
Senator Tkachuk: We will not get to Bill C-33. That is why we were here. Otherwise, we would not have met.
The Chair: You delayed it, and stop shouting.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not delaying it. I am not delaying anything.
The Chair: We can hear you.
Senator Tkachuk: I am sure you can. Then deal with the point of order.
The Chair: Senator Meighen.
Senator Tkachuk: You guys.
Senator Meighen: Senator Manning has said what I wanted to say. Over and above that, this last exchange underlines the fact that, in my view, it is totally unnecessary to proceed in this fashion. People on the opposition side have a majority of members. You can force anything through you want, I suppose.
However, it would seem to me to be only common courtesy and in the interests of this committee functioning in a congenial and productive way that notice of this kind of stuff be given and that a discussion be held. If agreement cannot be reached, then we go to a vote, but I do not think you go to the final solution before you have tried all the others.
To my knowledge, there was no informal — let alone formal — notice of this motion. It seems to be not conducive to the good functioning of this committee, plus the fact, as the chair of the subcommittee, it is eating into the time for that meeting. The chair of the senior committee was agreeable to holding a quick meeting to deal with a procedural matter in the interests of the Veterans Subcommittee. I very much hope we will get to that and can deal with this other matter in another forum at another time.
Senator Banks: I will withdraw my call for the question if you agree to deal with this question on Monday next.
The Chair: If it is the will of the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: Did you know that this question was coming up?
The Chair: I did.
Senator Tkachuk: Okay. Well, why did you not put it on the agenda?
The Chair: It is covered on the agenda.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, right.
Senator Wallin: Do you mean it is covered by the sentence, "Examine and report on the national security policy of Canada''?
The Chair: That is right.
Senator Wallin: That is the item?
The Chair: That is right.
Senator Tkachuk: Place it on the agenda for Monday. There is nothing wrong with that.
The Chair: Is that the wish of the committee?
Senator Banks: I am agreeable to that.
The Chair: Colleagues?
Senator Banks: Agreeable.
Senator Wallin: I need to correct the record as it has been stated here today. This is a public meeting.
The Chair: We have not gotten to the second round yet. Are there any others on the first round?
All right, Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: I want to correct both records. Yesterday, there had been a question on Monday night, I believe — clerk, please correct me if it was later than that — about whether a steering committee was possible. I was travelling and had commitments in the house. I agreed to meet briefly during Question Period. Our leader then rose to introduce Senate reform legislation, for which it was important that we were there. I proposed a separate meeting at 5 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. or some other time because Foreign Affairs was cancelled yesterday.
In the interim, after our full committee meeting on Monday, when we discussed travel for this committee and the ability of this committee to travel as a representative committee, meaning that there would be members of both parties represented, there was a general understanding that we would postpone the travel to the bases until the fall. That was the understanding of all who were in the room.
What I discovered yesterday was that in fact, this trip was back on, and it was being discussed in terms of the Liberals going without any Conservative representation. So, before I left the chamber, I went into the room and I asked Senator Kenny, the chair, if that was true. I asked if he was talking to Liberal members about doing that trip in the middle of the summer after there had been an agreement that we would try to do this together as a cooperative committee in the fall. I asked on several occasions. I asked that as a show of respect to his colleagues on the committee, the answer be forthcoming before we sat down to a steering committee meeting in which we all know what happens: Motions like today come forward and the majority gets to use its hammer.
We are trying to have some intelligent, reasonable, cooperative discussion and behaviour. I was dealt with rudely, again, and did not feel that there was any chance at that point that we would have any reasonable conversation at a steering committee when, yet again, things were being put forward and discussed that there had been no notice of — nothing. You just walk into these meetings where you are blindsided, and I just do not think that we can deal that way.
As I have said on so many occasions, we are a country at war. We have veterans that need to be dealt with. We have defence questions that must be dealt with. If we do not treat each other with respect, if we do not try to make this committee and its subcommittee functional, then we are not really serving the people.
I find this very difficult to do because of this kind of behaviour. I find this very difficult because of the inability of the chair even to consult the deputy chair in some tangential way, some informal way, a note, an email, a phone call — anything — as an indication that we might be able to deal with each other as adults who are respectful of one another.
There had been no steering committee called, and I do not have the exact date, but there was certainly none in May, and I think there were not any in April, but I could be corrected. There were several meetings at the beginning of our session.
If we are to have a steering committee, we have to do it when people can meet. There must be some respect for the members of that steering committee about the content and about what we are trying to accomplish. We do not do that with rude, dismissive language. We do not do that by keeping people ill informed and out of the debate and trying tactical surprise measures. Surely, we have got to get beyond that kind of behaviour if we are to do our job for the public that we serve.
Senator Banks: I have agreed that in order to allow discussion on this matter and that notice will have been given, we deal with it at the meeting on Monday, and I think the chair has agreed.
Senator Wallin, the purpose of steering committee meetings is to discuss what will be dealt with by the committee.
Senator Wallin: I agree.
Senator Banks: When you do not like the subject that will be discussed at a steering committee meeting and you leave so that no meeting can be held, that is not showing respect.
Senator Wallin: How could I know the subject?
Senator Banks: It would have been introduced at the meeting, senator.
Senator Wallin: I heard it by rumour in the chamber that after we had an understanding on Monday night, in fact, the chair was doing something else. I think that is a reasonable question.
Senator Mitchell: Then he meets you and tells you and you walk out.
Senator Wallin: No.
Senator Mitchell: Yes. You walk out.
The Chair: Senator Banks has the floor.
Senator Banks: Mr. Chair, I propose that you undertake that we will deal with this matter on Monday and that the matter, for the purpose of this meeting, is concluded.
The Chair: Do you want the floor?
Senator Mitchell: No.
Senator Wallin: Thank you.
The Chair: Are we agreed that this item be continued on Monday?
Senator Banks: Agreed.
Senator Day: I am hopeful there will not be an objection to dealing with this issue on Monday.
The Chair: Are we agreed to deal with it on Monday?
Senator Wallin: We are assuming that there will be some rationale provided.
The Chair: I am sorry. That is something that you will have to ask at the time, senator. If you want rationale, then you can ask for it. There is no requirement for Senator Banks or anyone else to provide a rationale. If you want it, then ask for it.
Senator Tkachuk: We will have debate on Monday.
The Chair: If everyone is agreed.
Senator Tkachuk: I thought we agreed on it twice, already. Why do we not get to Item No. 2, please?
Senator Mitchell: I want to be sure. We have agreed on it and there is no other notice or form of background information that the senator needs so she can be convinced that she has had adequate notice.
Senator Wallin: We will perhaps discuss that at a steering committee meeting.
Senator Mitchell: When will you have a steering committee meeting?
Senator Moore: I think we should vote.
Senator Mitchell: I am at a point where I think we should just vote today.
Senator Tkachuk: Are we being denied? Can we go to Item No. 2?
The Chair: No, we are not there yet. I was asking where we were.
Senator Tkachuk: I thought we agreed once.
The Chair: Senator Day, do you want the floor? Senator Moore?
Senator Moore: I want to know what the agreement is coming out of this discussion. I have heard that Senator Banks agreed to withdraw his motion, or at least have it deferred until Monday when the committee meets to vote on it.
The Chair: That is correct, but Senator Wallin started to put conditions on that.
Senator Moore: Now, I am hearing that we have to discuss it some more or we have to talk about it at the steering committee. I will not go there. If that is the case, I will vote today.
Senator Tkachuk: That is not what we said.
Senator Moore: That is what we said. I heard Senator Wallin say that, Chair.
Senator Wallin: I am assuming, Senator Banks, that you will present your rationale for this motion, as Senator Manning and others have asked for, and that we will have a debate.
Senator Banks: I will present it again as I presented it today. I will present it as many times as members wish.
Senator Mitchell: Senator Banks can present whatever he wants. Senator Wallin does not put conditions on what presentation he is about to make. She has notice; it will appear on the agenda for Monday and there will be a vote. I just want to hear her say "yes'' and that there is not some condition on it.
I may be wrong but, because the senator does not agree with something, she thinks that somehow she has not received adequate notice. The fact is that we have every right to debate it today and on Monday.
I want to know definitively that Senator Wallin has received notice in her mind that it is on the agenda and that it will be debated and voted upon.
Senator Wallin: I do not have anything more to say to Senator Mitchell. I think my colleagues and the members of the committee have heard me.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there other comments?
Senator Banks: I have another motion to make.
The Chair: Before you make that motion and for the record —
Senator Tkachuk: We will not get to the item on the agenda.
The Chair: I am sorry, Senator Tkachuk, you are not recognized.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not recognized?
The Chair: I am the chair and that is what chairs do.
Senator Tkachuk: That is it not what chairs do. You have lost the confidence of members on this side to operate as chair of the committee, period.
The Chair: I am sorry. You are out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not out of order.
The Chair: You are out of order. Will you shut the microphone off, please? He is out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: You shut the microphone off on me!
The Chair: You are out of order. When you are recognized, you can speak.
Senator Tkachuk: You are out of control.
The Chair: For the record, every meeting that the steering committee has had has been held at a time determined by Senator Wallin and by no one else. Senator Wallin's suggestions or allegations that she has not had courtesy simply are not true.
Senator Tkachuk: I cannot speak.
The Chair: Senator Banks was there and watched her walk out of the room. There was no rudeness. She stood in the door and said, "If you are going to talk about travel, I am not coming to this meeting.''
Senator Wallin: Actually, it was not that way.
The Chair: Ask Senator Banks. He was there.
Senator Wallin: There is no sense asking the two of you to recount what I said.
The Chair: That is what you say each time. That is why we have the problem.
Senator Tkachuk: I thought we were on Item No. 2.
The Chair: No, we are not.
Senator Banks: I have motion to make. That:
The requests for contracts for Keith MacDonald, Barry Denofsky, Dan Turner, Maureen Boyd be approved now by this committee and deemed as signed as they were authorized by the chair on May 28 in light of the approval of the budgets, containing those amounts that were approved by the Senate on May 27.
Senator Moore: They have to be paid.
Senator Wallin: I have a comment. It is my understanding of the new rules that all requests for these kinds of issues like committee contracts for consultants or personal services be signed off on by both the chair and the deputy chair.
On Monday night, many of you will have watched me hand the chair each of the copies of the contracts with our proposed changes. I cannot table these contracts because the clerk has not been able to have them translated in time. However, I am certainly happy to read them into the record.
There are the minor changes on things like "providing advisory services to the committee on military matters'' where we have proposed instead "providing advisory services to committee members on military matters.'' The changes are minimal.
I have not heard back from the chair. From my point of view, it is not that we do not agree. We are still in that stage of the process. If he and I do not agree, it then goes to the steering committee and then, if the steering committee does not resolve it, it goes back to the larger committee. I do not know why we would skip the other three stages.
Senator Banks: This was a subject that ought to have been considered at the steering committee meeting, which ought to have been held yesterday. Everyone on the steering committee knew that your proposals were to be discussed at the steering committee of yesterday.
The suggestion that it was not properly studied yesterday for any reason —
Senator Wallin: No, that is not —
The Chair: Order. Nobody interrupted you, Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: Did you not hear what I just said?
The Chair: Order, please.
Senator Banks: Senator Wallin, I knew of the proposals that you made with respect of the terms of the contracts, and I knew that they were to be discussed at the steering committee, which was supposed to be held yesterday, which you left because you did not like the subjects.
Now, senators, these budget amounts were approved by the Senate on May 27. They have directly to do with the business of the committee. They have to do with the reports that the committee has decided, in its approval of the work plan before us, to undertake to write. We use the services of these people for those purposes; specifically for the purposes that are set out in the notice of this meeting. They have not been employed yet and the work that they have done so far for the committee has been done pro bono.
Senator Wallin: Right.
Senator Banks: I do not think it is appropriate that we should ask these professional people to work for nothing, when the budget that includes their payment and the terms of their contracts — the maximum amounts of their contracts — have been set out and approved.
Senator, I must point out that contracts issued between contractors and the Senate are not required to be in both languages. They are never in both languages.
Senator Wallin: Then I will table these contracts now.
Senator Banks: They are issued in the language of the choice of the contractor and they are private information and ought not to be made public and ought not to be tabled in this meeting. The terms of the contracts can be tabled since we are aware of them. However, there is information contained on those contracts, which is personal and private and ought not to be made public.
The Chair: I have Senator Wallin followed by Senator Moore.
Senator Wallin: I, too, share the view of my colleagues that we are here to deal with the piece of legislation. We must get there. However, I cannot have Senator Banks repeatedly say that I walked out of a meting, which I did not. The meeting had not been convened.
Senator Banks: I agree with Senator Wallin on that point. The meeting was not —
Senator Mitchell: Oh my gosh.
Senator Wallin: I asked for some specific information about what the chair had been organizing outside of what we had agreed to as a group. I asked for a show of respect and I got behaviour that was, to say the least, less than respectful.
I have sat through many committee meetings and private meetings and statements that are made before and after the gavel that I consider to be completely disrespectful. This behaviour troubles me, not only personally, but professionally.
I did not walk out of a meeting. I asked for some very specific information that, as far as I knew, was new information and not on an agenda. I was trying to put it together. I could not even get an answer to that question. Therefore, for the record, let us make it clear that I did not walk out of a meeting. For the record, let us make it clear that I think the behaviour amongst and between senators must be civil.
Senator Moore: I am not clear what happened to the first motion made by Senator Banks. Have we agreed that will be dealt with on Monday?
The Chair: My understanding is that we have a unanimous agreement that it will be dealt with on Monday.
Senator Moore: Okay.
The Chair: Excuse me, did I miss something? Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: I thought he was done. You had me next. I am waiting for Senator Moore to finish.
Senator Moore: The next item with regard to the second motion dealing with the consultants contracts: Does that also include payment of the sums that are set out in it?
I went through this last summer. We had to call special meetings, and so on. We had contracts and agreements and they were stalled. These people did not get the money in accordance with the provision of the agreements. We were violating our own agreements.
I do not want to go through that again. I want to know that these people will be paid and they will be paid on the dates and in the amounts that are set out in the documents.
Senator Wallin: Point of clarification.
The Chair: Order, order, order!
Senator Moore: Is that what your motion says, Senator Banks?
Senator Banks: I am assuming that it does because a contract is a contract is a contract.
Senator Moore: We went through that before and I do not want to go into that again. Having special meetings over the summer to give people the money they have earned, that is not right.
The Chair: To be clear, Senator Moore, the contracts lay out the maximum amount that a contractor may be paid. The amount that is paid is subject to the invoice and the satisfactory presentation of work by the contractor.
Senator Moore: Yes.
The Chair: The contracts do not list the amount of payments at the end of each month; the amount of payments may vary depending on the amount of work they do.
Senator Moore: Fine. Thank you.
Senator Banks: Question.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: I think this matter should also be dealt with on Monday. There have been a number of suggestions made to the chair regarding changes in the contracts. I think that there should be at least a response as to why those changes cannot be made, or a discussion on that item between the chair and the deputy chair. There has been nothing of the sort.
Senator Wallin has put the proposal forward; I think she at least has the right to a response from the chair and then we can deal with the matter on Monday. If there are any issues in the contracts that are a problem, I think they can be dealt with one at a time. In that way, we can resolve some of them rather than getting into this matter of confrontation that we are in here right now.
Senator Banks: We will certainly leave it to the committee to decide that. However, I want to point out again, Senator Tkachuk, that the matters you are talking about — the proposals for changes in the conditions of employment — was a matter which was to be dealt with yesterday at the steering committee meeting.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand.
Senator Banks: Senator Wallin is correct: The steering committee was not convened because the rules provide that a steering committee cannot convene unless all three members are present. Senator Wallin came to the door, determined that she did not like what was to be discussed at the steering committee meeting, and left.
Senator Wallin: Sorry.
Senator Banks: No meeting could be convened.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Banks —
The Chair: Order, order. I have Senator Wallin next on the list.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, he is dealing —
The Chair: Senator Wallin.
Senator Tkachuk: — with a question and I would like to deal with this —
The Chair: Senator Wallin has the floor. If you would like to be on the list, indicate so, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Put me on the list. How did Senator Banks get on the list?
The Chair: He put his hand up.
Senator Wallin: Senator Banks has said again that I did not attend the meeting because I did not like the topics: That is wrong, okay? That is not what happened.
Senator Banks: That is what you said.
Senator Wallin: I asked for clarification of behaviour on the part of the chair as to whether he was recruiting Liberal members to go on a base trip over the summer — a trip in which the Conservative members would not be able to participate. We had a general understanding that we would put off the trips until September, when people could participate.
I did not know that any of these matters would be at the steering committee or what the else might be there. However, Senator Tkachuk's point is about the issues. I gave this at his request; I gave these changes to the chair on Monday night. Nothing involves money. Nothing involves their recompense. Nothing involves their start date. Nothing involves any of those matters; it is about the material itself: How they prepare it and to whom they send it. Both the chair and the deputy chair must sign off all requests — I will repeat again. That is why, on Monday night, I gave him this copy with our proposed changes highlighted in blue so that there could be no misunderstanding about the differences.
I am waiting to hear a response from the chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Well, Senator Wallin, I am sorry but you did walk away from the meeting.
Senator Wallin: I did not walk away from the meeting. There was no meeting in progress.
The Chair: There was no —
Senator Wallin: No meeting had been called. No meeting had been gavelled. No meeting had been brought to order.
Senator Moore: That is splitting hairs.
Senator Wallin: No, I am not splitting hairs.
The Chair: There was no agreement about travel. Senators were being consulted.
Senator Mitchell: It is embarrassing, Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: For you.
Senator Mitchell: No, for you, that you would say that is embarrassing to me.
The Chair: Senator Wallin, you simply are not telling something that is true.
Senator Wallin: Yes, I am. You cannot leave that on the record. There was not a meeting.
The Chair: It is clearly on the record.
Senator Wallin: There was not a meeting. There was not a meeting called.
The Chair: There was a meeting called. You do not even know the meaning of "meeting called.''
Senator Wallin: It had not been called to order.
The Chair: I am sorry.
Senator Wallin: I was asking for information which you refused to give me.
The Chair: You walked out of the meeting.
Senator Wallin: There was no meeting.
The Chair: I am sorry.
Senator Tkachuk: Chair.
Senator Wallin: There was no meeting.
The Chair: Order. I have Senator Banks.
Senator Tkachuk: Why do you have Senator Banks? I was on the list.
Senator Moore: Mr. Chair, Senator Tkachuk is next.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like to address a couple of issues. The most important is that Bill C-33 is here, which is why we had this meeting. It was to refer this matter to the Veterans Subcommittee. We have not even done that. We are arguing about matters that should be dealt with on Monday and we are debating matters that should be dealt with on Monday, without any notice whatsoever.
Senator Banks, I understand that the contractors may have done work, but no one has asked them to do any work except maybe the chair. We on this side certainly have not taken advantage of the consultants because there is no contract until the contract is signed.
The chair has explicitly told the committee that the documents, provided to date by the potential contractors, have been provided on a voluntary, pro bono basis. Good for them; they are great Canadians. The point is that no one has been asked to do any work without pay.
Senator Banks: That is correct.
Senator Tkachuk: There you go. I wanted to clarify that point.
Senator Banks: That is correct.
Senator Manning: I will preface my remarks by saying that I pity the 300 people who will be watching this on Saturday night across Canada.
My concern is on these contracts. Is it a rule the contracts be signed by the chair and deputy chair in order for them to be paid?
The Chair: Is that a question for me?
Senator Manning: Yes. Is that a rule? I heard that somewhere in a conversation.
The Chair: I will give you the process, if you like.
Senator Manning: Yes, please.
The Chair: The requirement is that they be approved by both the chair and the deputy chair. In the event that they do not agree, then it moves to the steering committee. In the event that the steering committee does not agree, well, the steering committee can obviously dispose of it. What also can happen is the full committee has the right to deal with the matter at any time and can short-circuit the entire process if it chooses to do so. The full committee is meeting now and Senator Banks has put a motion to the full committee which pre-empts the chair, deputy chair and the steering committee.
This committee has authority to authorize the contracts, and that is what Senator Banks has put before you.
Senator Wallin: That is not my understanding.
Senator Manning: No, I just wanted to be clear on what we were doing here.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chair, you may be legally correct, but I think you are totally wrong, ethically, and you are not dealing with this in a proper way.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk, you do not have the floor.
Senator Tkachuk: I have the floor and I will have the floor whenever I want.
The Chair: This is not a totalitarian regime that you run. You do not run the meeting. I am sorry. We have Senator Moore, followed by Senator Banks.
Senator Moore: I defer to Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Senator Manning, the chair has given you an answer to your question, but I want to ensure you understand the new rules. The rules require that both the chair and the deputy chair must sign contracts for employees of the committee. If there is disagreement between the chair and the deputy chair, the steering committee deals with the matter. If the steering committee does not dispose of it, then nothing ever stands in the way of any committee determining its own business, because the committee determines its operations entirely.
In the present case, though, you need to understand that a proposal was made to change the terms of the contracts, which were to be discussed at a steering committee yesterday. That meeting was not convened, although all the members were present, because one of the senators heard what was to be discussed at the meeting and left. Therefore, no such meeting could take place.
In the absence of that meeting, and in order to make the business of the committee move forward in being able to properly employ the people that we have all agreed to employ — namely Major-General McDonald, Mr. Denofsky, Ms. Boyd and Mr. Turner — I have brought the matter to the full committee. The steering committee was unable to deal with it because no meeting could be held because not all of the members were there.
When the steering committee is three, it cannot meet unless all of the members are there. If one member does not show up, it cannot function. That is one of the reasons for my proposal to increase the steering committee to five members because there needs to be other people around to see what happens at the steering committee.
The Chair: I have Senator Meighen.
Senator Meighen: We have already kept the witness without asking him to testify, and it looks like there will not be adequate time. I trust that the chair will find the time to deal with the reference — Bill C-33 — and, perhaps, if necessary, resume this discussion after we do that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moore: Where do we stand on the contracts for the consultants?
The Chair: There is a motion on the floor. Question.
Those in favour? Those opposed?
Senator Wallin: Are you attending the meeting as a member?
The Chair: Yes, he is a member.
Senator Mitchell: Of course, I am.
Senator Tkachuk: Call the vote, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I will once I give her the form.
Senator Wallin: You cannot do this after the fact.
The Chair: I can do it any time I like.
Senator Tkachuk: Call the question.
Senator Wallin: Actually, you cannot do it once a vote has been called by your own members.
Senator Tkachuk: You called a vote. Call the vote. All in favour? One, two, three, four. All opposed? One, two, three, four. The vote fails.
The Chair: Those in favour? Those opposed? Are you abstaining?
Senator Tkachuk: We are telling you he is not a member of this committee and he was not a member when this vote was called. This is out of order. This vote is out of order. This is out of order.
The Chair: I heard you.
Senator Wallin: You cannot sign up members when a vote does not go your way.
Senator Tkachuk: You sign up members when the vote is called.
The Chair: I am sorry.
Senator Tkachuk: What do you mean you are sorry?
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Senator Tkachuk: Run the meeting properly, so we do not have to have these arguments. Senator Mitchell was not a part of this committee.
Senator Wallin: I asked explicitly, when we entered this room, if he had status at this meeting, and I was told no.
Senator Tkachuk: You had to sign him. The vote was called. It was called by Senator Moore. As far as I am concerned —
The Chair: I hear you.
Senator Tkachuk: He does not get to vote.
The Chair: I am sorry. Could you move the motion again please, Senator Banks?
Senator Manning: Point of order, Mr. Chair.
Senator Tkachuk: You cannot move the motion again. This is out of order.
Senator Manning: Point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: I am new here, so excuse my ignorance. By the holy jumpins', I thought Newfoundland politics was something! I am trying my best to cooperate and I certainly listened to Senator Banks. I asked for explanations of both of his motions today. I give him credit for explaining his side of it to me and it gives me an opportunity to understand.
However, with all due respect, I really have a concern with a vote being called and a member being signed in as we sit here, during that vote.
The Chair: I understand.
Senator Tkachuk: Your member called the vote.
Senator Manning: In the essence —
The Chair: I understand, and Senator Banks can put the motion again, please.
Senator Wallin: We cannot keep voting.
Senator Manning: I am on a point of order. We have some problems here, there is no doubt about that — you would have to be blind not to see it. However, the fact is we have some serious issues we are trying to deal with, and I think we should be trying to get along somehow — in some shape or form. Canadians expect it and, as I said before, the 300 or 400 people who might be watching this on Saturday night will really wonder what we are doing in the Senate.
The fact is that I think that we need to have a little bit of respect for each and every one of us. I know there are some personality differences but the fact is we called the vote and you actually signed in a person to vote as we are sitting here.
Can you answer if that has been done before?
The Chair: I have seen it done. Thank you. Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: In light of the question of propriety — and I will suggest that I will bring this motion, and I am giving this as notice to members — I will bring this motion to the meeting on Monday next, Mr. Chair. Notwithstanding that —
Senator Tkachuk: You are a piece of work. You lost the vote.
Senator Banks: I will introduce the motion again on Monday. I assume members can take this as notice of the motion to be made on Monday. I would like to move that we go to —
The Chair: You do not have the floor right now, Senator Tkachuk. Senator Banks has the floor.
Senator Banks: I would like to propose that given that undertaking that I have just made, we now move to consideration of the referral of Bill C-33 to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
The Chair: Senator Banks moved it. Those in favour? Opposed?
Carried.
Senator Tkachuk: I move the adjournment.
The Chair: That is not debatable.
Those opposed to adjourning? I am sorry, we are adjourned and I accept the adjournment. Senator Meighen.
Senator Meighen: Have we had the reference? The clerk tells me we have it.
Very well. We are adjourning in just a moment and will reconvene as the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
(The committee adjourned.)