Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 8 - Evidence - June 15, 2009
OTTAWA, Monday, June 15, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4 p.m. to examine and report on the national security policy of Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. Before we commence, I understand Senator Wallin has a point of order that she would like to bring forward.
Senator Wallin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The last time we met, which I think was last Wednesday, we began the discussion about the consultants' contracts. I had given you a piece of paper with some proposed changes on it. I have actually not heard back from you yet officially, so I have copies here in French and in English. Maybe we can just have everyone take a look at them and see if they have any concerns. I would like to have this discussion before we go down the road.
The Chair: What is your point of order?
Senator Wallin: Just because Senator Banks had indicated his intention to raise this again. Before we have any vote on this, I would like committee members — because I only gave you a copy of the changes —
The Chair: I understand, but I have not heard your point of order yet, please.
Senator Wallin: Well, that we have this discussion before any other motions be raised.
The Chair: With respect, I think you are asking for something to be added to the agenda.
Senator Wallin: Well, I do not know what the agenda is.
The Chair: I will certainly entertain that, if that is what you would like to do.
Senator Wallin: I would like to start this discussion so that any vote we might have or further discussion will be based on what I have actually proposed here, because I have not heard back from you. There is a set of procedures that is followed on this stuff. I am just going to try to go through procedure No. 1.
The Chair: The time when we were going to respond to you was at the steering committee meeting that you left.
Senator Wallin: No, I did not leave a steering committee meeting because there was no steering committee convened. There was no agenda for that meeting. I did not know that this was on the agenda because no agenda was put forward. I really want to make it clear to everyone here today that I did not leave a steering committee meeting. One had not been convened.
Senator Moore: Because you left.
Senator Wallin: No. I asked for that meeting to happen at 5:00 in the afternoon because Foreign Affairs had been cancelled, and I therefore had time outside the chamber. I have had this discussion with the chair on repeated occasions — that it is very difficult for me to leave the chamber.
On that particular day, our leader was putting forward all her amendments regarding Senate reform. It was proper for me, and I had been asked, to be in the chamber while that presentation was being made. I had also been told that afternoon, from three different sets of people, that there were discussions under way about having, for lack of a better phrase, a ``Liberal-only'' trip to the bases in the summer. That was exactly the question I put to the chair before we got into the steering committee or any of those things because I am not prescient; I could not know that that issue would be on the agenda of a steering committee when I did not have an agenda.
I was asking that question because it ran contrary to most people's recollection of what we had informally agreed to, which was that we would postpone the bases trip until the fall when everyone could participate, and that the border trips would carry on as planned, with some massaging with regard to dates for certain people to ensure that they could go; but that those were on and would be carried on through the summer and that it was everyone's intention that we do this as a joint project.
That is the question I raised before we ever got to the steering committee.
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to respond.
Senator Wallin: I am just going to hand these out.
The Chair: First, you did not ask about a Liberal-only trip; you just asked if travel was on. You also agreed —
Senator Wallin: No, no. I asked very specifically.
The Chair: Please let me finish the sentence.
Senator Wallin: I cannot let you say things that simply are not representative. I know what I said to you.
The Chair: Well, Senator Wallin, Senator Banks was there.
Senator Wallin: Senator Banks, is that your recollection? I know very specifically that it came to me.
The Chair: We have heard from you already, Senator Wallin. You have asked Senator Banks. Let us hear from him.
Senator Banks: Mr. Chair and members, we had this discussion and argument last Wednesday interminably. The simple fact is that there was no meeting of the steering committee convened because the required quorum for a meeting of the steering committee is three and there were only two members who were prepared to have a steering committee meeting. When Senator Wallin, the third member, came, she asked whether the subject matter of the steering committee meeting would include travel. The chair replied that it would.
At that point, Senator Wallin said, ``Then I will not participate in this meeting,'' and left, so there was no meeting convened, as Senator Wallin has said. The reason there was no meeting convened is because the Rules of the Senate do not permit a meeting to be held unless there are three members present. Senator Wallin, who is the third member that Senator Kenny and I were waiting for — for half an hour — did not take part in the meeting, so no meeting was held. Senator Wallin is correct in that regard.
The Chair: If I may, we do not have a point of order before us. We have a request for this item to be put on the agenda. I would like to know if members would like to discuss this item.
Senator Wallin: I would also like to hear from the clerk, if we could.
Senator Banks: I have a question of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Yes, Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Do we have these proposed descriptions of services in both languages?
Senator Wallin: Yes, I have them all right here.
There you go.
Senator Banks: Thank you.
Senator Meighen: I am not sure what is on the agenda, but because it concerns the full Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, I want to ensure that everyone is up to speed on arrangements for Wednesday with respect to the allied veterans bill, of which we all are supportive, and the witnesses who will be appearing on Wednesday.
I am hopeful that National Security and Defence would be able to convene at the end of the time slot for Veterans Affairs so that we can report the bill back through the parent committee, if we are in a position to do so — which I think we will be.
The Chair: Will there be time to do clause-by-clause consideration?
Senator Meighen: Yes — at least, I devoutly hope so. I am given reason to believe there will be. Perhaps we could have a notice of meeting for 1:20 p.m. or 1:15 p.m.
The Chair: As chair of that committee, I will do my best to make it happen.
Senator Meighen: Is it difficult?
The Chair: The committee members do what they will, but I will support it.
Senator Meighen: Thank you, chair.
The Chair: I asked the question: Are senators agreeable to dealing with the item that Senator Wallin has raised?
Senator Day: Are we dealing with the motion that we started to deal with and that was made last Wednesday: to pay the four individuals who are providing services?
Senator Wallin: This is separate. What I am trying to say is that —
The Chair: Senator Wallin, you have not been given the floor.
Senator Wallin: I am trying to offer some clarification here.
The Chair: In your turn; you can wait.
Senator Day, Senator Wallin left a note up here indicating she had a point of order. She does not have a point of order. She has a request for something to be put on the agenda. She has voluntarily circulated a document.
The question I have put to the committee is: Would they like to commence the meeting with this subject that Senator Wallin has raised? I am looking for a reaction from committee members to it. We are aware of Senator Wallin's view because he has made the request —
Senator Wallin: No, I think this may be the point of order that you are looking for.
The Chair: Senator, you are out of order.
Senator Wallin: No, you asked what the point of order was.
The Chair: No, senator, I did not ask.
Senator Wallin: Yes, you did.
The Chair: I said you did not have a point of order.
Senator Wallin: I actually think committee members must understand that there is a procedure that is followed according to new rules adopted by Internal Economy that, when it comes to subjects like this, if you and I do not agree, it then goes to steering committee. If there is no agreement then, it is referred back to Internal Economy.
I am trying to put information on the table so that a vote on these issues is not prematurely held. Because I am still awaiting your response, that is why I have brought this here: so that perhaps the whole committee could understand before we get to any other procedure or vote that would be, I think — and I have done some research on this — in violation and in breach.
I do not think the committee wants to go down that road. That is why I am proposing this.
The Chair: I am sorry, but you still do not have a point of order. We are back on the question, colleagues: Do you want to address this now?
Senator Moore: Mr. Chair, when we broke off last week, we said that we were coming here today to deal with the two motions that were put on the floor last week. I want to deal with those two motions first. We can then decide on the rest of this.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any other views, please?
Senator Banks: I think that Senator Moore's suggestion is a good one. The documents that Senator Wallin has circulated in both official languages are, I think, perfectly in order and can be dealt with today. I think that we should deal with them today, subsequent to having dealt with the two motions that we decided we would deal with on Wednesday.
Senator Tkachuk: Do we have any other items on the agenda besides those two?
The Chair: There are four motions that I am aware of that people would like to have passed.
Senator Tkachuk: Could we be made aware of them?
The Chair: They move their motions when they choose to move their motions.
Senator Banks: Is it two or four?
Senator Tkachuk: Two? Are there four or two?
The Chair: They will raise their hands when they want to move the motions.
Senator Tkachuk: Okay. That is good.
The Chair: Okay?
Senator Meighen: That is a new way of proceeding.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, it is a new way to proceed.
The Chair: Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: A point of clarification, Mr. Chair. If my memory services me correctly — and, believe you me, it is getting a bit foggy — the two motions we are dealing with are the one for the payment for these people that we have had doing research for us and, if I follow Senator Banks' comments, some are related to ideas or suggestions that Senator Wallin has put forward to deal with that particular motion — or to deal with the people in that particular motion, may be a better way of putting it.
Would it not be correct to discuss this as part of that motion; that is, if we are to make changes to this? I am trying to clarify. I cannot exactly remember the wording of your motion.
The Chair: That is the point. Until it is put on the floor, it is it hard for people to know what a point of order is and what a point of order is not. You cannot start off the meeting with a point of order because nothing has happened. As a consequence, she will have to wait until there is something that she thinks is out of order and then she can move a motion.
Senator Manning: Again, I have a point of clarification: At what point will we get to discuss the suggestions put forward by Senator Wallin? Will that be after we take a vote on the motion?
The Chair: It seems there is a consensus to deal with the motions first.
Senator Moore: That is what we agreed last week.
Senator Manning: I know we agreed to come here to discuss the motion.
Senator Moore: No, we agreed to put them to a vote.
Senator Manning: Will we discuss these or not? If we are not to discuss them, tell us we will not discuss them. However, we have suggestions here. If we make the motion and vote on the motion, the motion is passed and we do not have a discussion. Am I correct in saying that?
The Chair: No, not until the motion is passed.
Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Wallin is trying to do a few things here. There are a couple of issues. One is the issue that she sent a letter to the deputy chair regarding the contracts. There was no response given.
The Chair: She is the deputy chair.
Senator Tkachuk: To the chair from the deputy chair.
The Chair: She did not send a letter to me.
Senator Wallin: I handed it to you in front of this entire room.
Senator Tkachuk: She did. She is trying to find a way through these motions to get a discussion on the table of what she thinks are relevant topics to be discussed under the contract, which, to me, seems eminently reasonable. She has brought these two motions to the floor so that we can have a general discussion before we get into a battle about the kind of motions that were brought forward by Senator Banks.
I think that is a good idea to do and you should contemplate that, chair, rather than go straight to the motions. We are then getting into a discussion that, really, does not have a lot to do with the fact that the deputy chair is bringing up certain areas of interest. All on our side are interested in hearing the views of all the committee members on it. Certainly, an explanation or a presentation by our deputy chair to bring this to the floor so that we can all have a discussion about it to see if there are any areas of agreement seems normal. To me, that seems to be what normal people do.
If we are to ignore the fact that we cannot raise items without causing confrontation, then we have a problem in having a reasonable committee that works.
The Chair: I agree with that, Senator Tkachuk. The point I am making is simply that it was put to me in writing that she wanted to raise a point of order. There is no point of order being raised.
We listened to her talk and, until there is something to raise a point of order over, it is not appropriate for her to get into these things. Once there is a motion —
Senator Wallin: I have a point of order.
The Chair: — on the floor, then she has an opportunity to raise any points that she wants to raise.
Senator Wallin: I am trying to prevent the committee —
The Chair: But there has not been a motion on the floor, yet.
Senator Wallin: May I speak to this?
The Chair: You have already spoken.
Senator Wallin: May I please speak to this on a point of clarification?
The Chair: There is no such thing as a point of clarification.
Senator Wallin: Can I please clarify your concerns about this issue?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Wallin: There was a motion put last week and there were troubles with the vote. We all know what happened there. I am trying to do something here because, subsequent to that, we went and did some homework on what proper procedure is. This is the proper procedure as I tried to spell out a few moments ago, that when I have —
The Chair: We heard that a few moments ago and you were wrong then. If you repeat it, you will be wrong again.
Senator Wallin: I am not wrong. I am telling you that there is a procedure to follow. I gave you these proposed changes last week. I have not heard back from you. There are two choices: It goes to the steering committee or it goes to Internal Economy.
The Chair: That is not correct.
Senator Wallin: It is, apparently, correct.
The Chair: Apparently not.
Senator Wallin: I do not think you can simply declare it.
The Chair: That is what a chair is for.
Senator Wallin: We actually have rules in the Senate for that. I am trying to prevent the committee from going, immediately and precipitously, to another vote on this. That is one route. Senator Banks could propose his motion. We could debate some of these things internally.
However, I do not think that process is correct. I am trying to get us to have a discussion on substance at the beginning. If we can find compromise and shared ground on the actual substance, then the vote on these contracts will go a lot easier and without any fuss, partisan debate and all of this stuff. We are only trying to deal with the substance of it so that we can move forward.
On those two things — particularly that latter point — I think you agree; that is, you want to deal with this speedily. You have not responded to this. Therefore, let us decide as a committee, instead of going down the technical road. I am assuming your refusal to respond to me means you disagree somehow. If we do not want to go down the road to end up in Internal Economy on these amendments that I have proposed, I am proposing we have this discussion as a committee. We can agree to see if we have common ground on this before a motion is on the table that I think might take us down a path that is in violation of rules.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wallin. Your point of view is out of order.
There has to be a motion on the floor. If you do not agree with the motion, then you can put forward a point of order. You have no idea what my views are on the job descriptions because you did not come to the meeting.
Senator Wallin: No, this was after that.
The Chair: I am sorry, Senator Banks —
Senator Wallin: Your timing is wrong on that.
The Chair: Senator Banks has the floor.
You may speak, Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Perhaps it would be in order, Mr. Chair, to have a motion on the floor to discuss things properly.
The Chair: That is right.
Senator Banks: I think the most appropriate thing to have on the floor would be the motions — of which there are two — that I made at the last meeting on Wednesday. We agreed those should be postponed until the meeting today. If I recall correctly, we undertook at that meeting to deal with these motions today.
In order that they are on the floor and can be properly dealt with in case there is a point of order about them, I would make two motions. They are the ones that we discussed last Wednesday and that I voluntarily removed from the business of last Wednesday on the understanding and undertaking, if I recall correctly, that they would be dealt with today.
The first motion is:
That the proposed requests for contracts for Keith McDonald, Barry Denofsky, Dan Turner and Maureen Boyd be approved by the committee as authorized by the chair on May 28, 2009.
These are contracts that have been approved by this committee, approved by the budget subcommittee of Internal Economy, approved by Internal Economy, reported to the Senate and approved by the Senate on May 27.
The second motion is that notwithstanding the motion that this committee adopted on March 2, 2009:
. . . the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed by five members: the chair, the deputy chair, the Honourable Senator Banks, one other senator to be designated by the deputy chair, and one other senator to be designated by the chair.
Those are the two motions that we agreed last Wednesday to deal with today. I have moved them, Mr. Chair. They are on the floor and we can proceed with questions of order.
Senator Moore: I second that.
Senator Manning: A point of order, Mr. Chair.
I fully understand, Senator Banks, that we had that discussion last week. We were fully aware that both motions were coming to the floor today. Would it be proper order to deal with one motion at the time? I do not think you can have two motions on the floor at the same time.
Senator Banks: No, they are separate motions.
The Chair: I think Senator Banks said he wanted to deal with Motion No. 2 first.
Senator Banks: The motion I proposed first has to do with this committee ratifying and deeming to be in order the contracts for the four persons that I named.
The Chair: That is the first one you mentioned.
Senator Banks: The second motion has to do with the size of the steering committee.
The Chair: Are there comments in relation to the contracts for Mr. McDonald, Mr. Denofsky, Mr. Turner and Ms. Boyd?
Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: This whole process arose out of the fact that a letter was sent to the chair by our deputy chair regarding our particular views on the contracts. I would like to have a discussion about that.
Since the motion does not lend itself to a discussion on those items, I would like to move an amendment. The amendment would be: That the committee respond in full at the earliest practical opportunity to the recommendations of the deputy chair regarding the wording of requests for contracts for consultants.
Senator Day: On the motion to amend, I would like to confirm, at least for Keith McDonald, Dan Turner and Barry Denofsky, that these are the same contracts put forward for the same people who provided services to this committee in the past with the same wording that has been accepted in the past, or are they new contracts?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Day: They are?
The Chair: They are different dates for different years.
Senator Day: They have basically the same wording that has worked well for us in the past several years.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Day: Then I will vote against the motion to amend. I have heard no compelling reason to amend these contracts.
Senator Meighen: In the same vein as Senator Day, I want to ask the mover to confirm, since I am the seconder, that the amendment does not change the remuneration proposed from previous experience.
Senator Tkachuk: No, they do not.
The Chair: There is no need for seconders either.
Senator Day: You do not need a seconder in committee, but it is nice of you to second it.
Senator Meighen: The fee does not seem to be at issue; it is merely some of the ancillary services to the work that they are called upon to do. From my cursory reading of it, there does not seem to be anything controversial, unless I am mistaken. I am at a loss as to why we are dealing with this on a formal basis rather than a cooperative, collaborative basis, which is probably a better way to ensure success and the smooth operation of the committee.
Senator Zimmer: I have another motion I would like to put forward.
The Chair: Let us deal with what we have. We need to have a vote on this motion.
Senator Tkachuk: He can move a subamendment.
Senator Zimmer: It is not a subamendment.
Senator Day: Question on the motion to amend.
The Chair: Senator Nolin.
Senator Nolin: I am not a member of the committee today.
On the first two contracts for Keith McDonald and Barry Denofsky, I understand that the deputy chair is proposing they would complement the work of the Library of Parliament. I always thought that is exactly what they were doing.
The Chair: Then there would be no need to change anything, would there?
Senator Nolin: This is more a question to you. It seems to be more a form of clarity for the two first contracts.
For the third contract, Dan Turner, the changes are more than to complement — basically, it is to revise and to rewrite. There probably should be a discussion on that one. On the fourth one, the services are really provided by the Communications Directorate. Do you need two? It is more a question to you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any other comments?
Senator Banks: On the proposal?
The Chair: No. There is a motion before us to amend your amendment.
Senator Banks: I have some reservations based on the fact that, as Senator Day has said, the present job descriptions have served us very well. I will go one at a time.
I do not think Keith McDonald has ever failed to provide advice to committee members. The main thrust of his job contract, and the work for which he is paid, is to give advice to the committee, not to committee members. For nine years, members here present have asked General McDonald individual questions and sought individual advice from time to time. The job description, in my view, ought to be that General McDonald provide services to the committee. That is what he has agreed to do. It is not proper to expect him to provide advice to nine people.
I would have the same reservation with respect to Barry Denofsky. I am talking about the question of committee members. It is unreasonable to suggest that Mr. Denofsky provide national security advice to nine people rather than to the committee, per se.
It is the same with respect to Dan Turner. Senator Wallin proposes that Dan Turner provide writing and editing services to committee members. Senators, if Dan Turner were to provide writing services to committee members, his contract would not be for the amount that is before us. It would be for eight or ten times the amount that is before us.
Senators would know that Mr. Turner always operates at the direction of the committee on a word-for-word basis. To ask him to provide writing services to committee members outside of the contract that is specified here would be completely out of order and unreasonable.
The same argument would prevail with respect to the proposal about the changing Maureen Boyd's terms of reference. It is not out of order, but it is unreasonable to write into a contract that these services will be provided to committee members as opposed to the committee.
Senator Wallin: I have comments on this.
The Chair: Could we hear the motion that is on the floor as moved by Senator Tkachuk, please?
Senator Moore: Do you mean the motion in amendment?
The Chair: Yes, just the amendment.
Senator Wallin: We have comments.
The Chair: Fine. We will hear the motion. Do you mind, Senator Wallin?
Senator Tkachuk: Chair, you do not have to talk to any of our members like that. I have had —
The Chair: I am sorry. I have had enough of her interrupting every time we ask a civil question. I simply asked the clerk to read the motion. That is a reasonable thing to do without getting interrupted.
Senator Tkachuk: Let her read the motion.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: It is a bit of a paraphrase: That the committee respond in full to the deputy chair regarding the wording for the consultants' contracts.
The Chair: Is that what you moved, Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: I moved that the committee respond in full at the earliest practical —
The Chair: Could I ask you to go slowly so that the clerk is able to transcribe it for the committee?
Senator Tkachuk: It is:
That the committee respond in full at the earliest practical opportunity to the recommendations of the deputy chair regarding the wording of requests for contracts —
The Chair: She cannot keep up with you.
Senator Tkachuk: She will ask me.
The Chair: I am watching her writing it.
Senator Tkachuk: She is fully capable of letting me know when I am going too fast and what word she missed.
Ms. Anwar: — to the recommendations of the deputy chair —
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, regarding the wording of requests for contracts for consultants.
The Chair: Could you read it back to us?
Ms. Anwar: It reads:
That the committee respond in full at the earliest practical opportunity to the recommendations from the deputy chair regarding the wording of requests for contracts for consultants.
Senator Tkachuk: Right.
Senator Manning: I have a point of order. Mr. McDonald provides services to the committee or provides them to the committee members. What is the difference?
The Chair: I am sorry, that is not a point of order.
Senator Manning: I am just asking a question.
Senator Wallin: Am I on the list?
The Chair: I keep the list, and you are.
Senator Manning: I will call it a question then if it is not a point of order. May I ask a question? I heard Senator Banks explain. Maybe he could explain a bit further.
The Chair: Before we call the question, Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: I would like to respond a bit to the thinking here. This is exactly what we have been trying to accomplish, which is to have some discussion amongst the committee as a whole on our questions and concerns. As Senator Meighen pointed out, we are not talking about fundamental things in the contract, such as payment. These wording changes you will see repeated in the blue highlights.
In the first one, for example, the difference between committee and committee members is that in addition to the consultants being responsive to the chair, I would like it to be — as the chair has said in the past in private meetings and in public — that any committee member, at any point, can phone any of one of these consultants to seek help, advice, direction and thoughts. I am trying to make it absolutely clear that is it is not the committee as represented by the deputy chair or the chair of the steering committee, but that individual members of this committee could call Mr. McDonald or anyone else to say, ``I have a question on this,'' or ``I am looking at your research and wondering if you could help me understand this.''
The next line states, ``to complement the services provided by the Library of Parliament.'' We have seen this on a couple of occasions when we have seen merged material and on other occasions we have seen separate material. I personally find it helpful when I see the material separately. Therefore, rather than have all material merged, we would have two sources of information for us to look at and bring to bear in terms of preparing our questions and our research.
This wording simply reflects that supplementary briefing materials, reviewing of draft reports and original material are prepared by the Library of Parliament. The language simply says what I thought we all agreed to in principle, which is that all members have access to the consultants.
On the next one for Mr. Denofsky, you will see the contract refers to providing ``advisory services to committee members'' and ``to complement the services provided by the Library of Parliament.''
It is the same idea and the same language is spelled out to make it abundantly clear in respect of some of the issues under the Dan Turner contract. I am quite happy if Senator Banks thinks that this is too wide-ranging because I certainly did not contemplate that Dan Turner would be writing chapters of books for any committee member or op- eds to newspapers. The writing and editing services would be provided to committee members on committee business, or some such phrase could be put in there. Again, the services would be complemented by the services provided by the Library of Parliament. It is my understanding they prepare draft reports and other material. Providing writing, editing and redrafting services, as instructed by the committee, for draft reports and original material simply spells things out so that we have some consistency. Then again, on the questions under terms of payment, this is just a matter of getting material for those of us who are not in Ottawa five days a week, who have travel obligations and other committee obligations, and that we be guaranteed some time to look at these documents before we come to a meeting where we have to sign off on them. Even though there may be a word-by-word or line-by-line discussion, I for one like to be able to ingest this material and think about it so that when I come to committee to do a line-by-line review I have something constructive to say. I thought it was a reasonable request that we would see this material five days prior to a committee meeting rather than 15 minutes before it or a day before it so that there is some time to do that.
With respect to the final contract, the wording on media relations is pretty much there for committee members. If anyone on the committee, myself included, had a different interpretation of what we heard or whether we had a view on a witness or whether there were some questions about any number of things — as we hear such a wide range of material — I would feel comfortable if we could phone this contractor and say, ``Could you help me out with this because I think it would be important for me to talk about this issue?'' Those services need to be there and need to be stated a little more clearly in the sense that everyone is there to serve the members of the committee. I am referring strictly to committee work. I am not asking them to do work on the side or work that might be of a personal nature or things that I might want to write or say that are not directly related to actual committee work.
Again, on that contract, there are no questions about fees or travel expenses or any of those things; this is just clarifying in my mind that that relationship is clear with all members of the committee.
There may be further questions about what I am trying to accomplish here. Perhaps I did not do it in the clearest way, but I do think I stayed within the language of that very simple concept that consultants to the committee should be consultants to committee members.
Senator Banks: I call the question on the amendment.
The Chair: Thank you.
You have already been in on it.
Senator Tkachuk: So what? I can speak again, can I?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you very much.
Senator Day: We should close the debate on this.
Senator Tkachuk: Why should we close the debate? We are in committee. We can all speak as many times as we want. Without further ado, Senator Day, I think I would like to continue.
Senator Day: I think you should.
Senator Tkachuk: I agree with Senator Wallin on the points that we are trying to make here and have been made. First, these could have been discussed and dealt with without us doing it at a committee meeting. That is the first point I would like to make.
Second, none of these things are issues that have not been said by Senator Day and others. Of course this is the way it works; everyone has access to the consultants. No one here has not had access. We all have had access. They are there to provide help to all of us. All we are doing here is putting it into the contract to clarify it and to also clarify the relationship between them and the Library of Parliament. I think it is important, and I will ask that we always get separate reports. I do not want these reports to be edited by anyone else. The Library of Parliament can provide its advice, the consultants can provide their advice, and that is the way I will expect my reports to come. I, as a senator, have a right to request that.
I would like it written into the contract for these people because I think that would clarify it not only for us, but it would clarify it for them.
I will support the amendment, obviously; it is my amendment, and I ask all members to do so.
Some Hon. Senators: Question.
The Chair: Those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Senator Tkachuk: Could we have a recorded vote, please?
The Chair: You may.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Day.
Senator Day: Against.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Kenny.
The Chair: Against.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: For.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Meighen.
Senator Meighen: For.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: Against.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: For.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: For.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Zimmer.
Senator Zimmer: Against.
The Chair: This brings us to the main motion.
Senator Banks: Question on the main motion.
The Chair: Those in favour?
Senator Tkachuk: Just a moment here. I will raise a point of order on this motion. I will raise the issue that the motion by Senator Banks is not in order. It contravenes the process laid down by the Internal Economy Committee for dealing with such issues.
On March 12, 2009, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decided the following: one, that all requests for committee contracts for consulting and personnel services be signed off by both the chair and deputy chair of the committee; two, that all committee invoices for consultants and personal services be signed off by both the chair and the deputy chair of the committee before the invoice is paid; three, that if the chair and the deputy chair of the originating committee do not agree, the matter will be presented to the steering committee of that particular committee for resolution. If the matter is still not resolved, it will be presented to the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for resolution and reported back to the full Committee on Internal Economy.
The motion before us would clearly violate this directive. A majority of committee members simply cannot vote to bypass the requirements for the deputy chair to sign requests for contracts. The committee cannot simply deem the deputy chair to have signed the documents. Instead of this motion being brought to the Security and Defence Committee, what should happen is that the chair of the committee should respond to the proposals made by the deputy chair a week ago regarding the wording of the requests for contracts. In other words — which we tried to do today — the chair should show at least a modicum of effort to come to an agreement on the terms contained in the requests for contracts. Then, if the chair and the deputy chair cannot agree, and if the steering committee is unable to resolve the matter, it should be referred to the steering committee on Internal Economy, and that is the proper process.
I ask you, Mr. Chair, to find that this motion is out of order.
Senator Banks: A point of order.
I cannot imagine that it is improper for a committee, in the absence of meetings of its steering committee, to deal with a question before it. I cannot imagine that it is out of order. I argue that there is no point of order.
Senator Wallin: I want to go back to the point and walk us through it. When I handed these notes over to the chair, the first obligation under the rule that Senator Tkachuk just read into the record is that the chair respond to the deputy chair and they attempt, between the two of them, to come to some reconciliation on this matter.
I am still awaiting the response of the chair to my comments, which is step one in this process.
The Chair: Are there other comments?
Senator Nolin: Was there a genuine attempt to resolve that situation between you and the deputy chair?
The Chair: You are free to make a statement. I am not here to answer questions.
Senator Nolin: The point of order is raising a ``lack of'' situation. That is why I am asking that question.
The Chair: I hear you.
Are there any other comments?
Senator Nolin: Maybe I could ask the question of the mover of the point of order.
Senator Tkachuk: I only know one thing. If a letter was sent or given to the chair raising some issues on the contract, there should have been at least a response by the chair to that letter and to that presentation. There was none.
There was no meeting, as far as I know, of the Internal Economy Committee to resolve this issue, but I am not a member of that committee. The motion that is being put forward is an unresolved issue. The reason that this particular order was made by the Internal Economy Committee was because of previous problems that have been dealt with rather ungraciously — which is the nicest word I can use — which is why this particular order exists. We have a road map to follow and I think we have to follow it. I do not think we can go against the order.
Senator Nolin: Thank you.
Senator Manning: Do orders of the Internal Economy Committee supersede the workings of a committee?
Senator Tkachuk: They are not an order. I just answered that. That would have been an order of the Senate because the minutes of the Internal Economy Committee are adopted by the Senate.
The Chair: Thank you. I have heard enough.
Senator Manning: I wanted to ask a question.
The Chair: I am sorry; I have heard enough.
Senator Nolin: It is a point of order.
The Chair: On points of order, after I have heard the views of enough people to make up my mind, then it is up to me —
Senator Manning: You cannot even ask a question here?
The Chair: I am sorry.
Senator Manning: What in the hell are we at here if we cannot ask a question? Hold on, Mr. Chair, I just want to ask a simple question here. I am a member of this committee, and I want to ask a question.
The Chair: You can ask a question after you hear the ruling.
Senator Manning: I want to ask a question in regards to the —
The Chair: After you hear the ruling. You are out of order now, sir.
Senator Manning: In regards to what he just said, I want to ask a question.
The Chair: You are still out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like to add another point, Mr. Chair, to that question, which is that —
Senator Manning: This is out of hand, boy. I have the floor here for a minute.
The Chair: No, you are out of order.
Senator Manning: No, I have the floor here.
The Chair: You do not have the floor anymore. I am sorry.
Senator Manning: Well, I am going to say it anyway.
The Chair: No, you are not.
Senator Manning: Oh, yes, I am. I am asking the question.
The Chair: Please cut off his microphone. He is out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: You have no right to do that, Mr. Chair. That is enough of that.
The Chair: Yes, I do, and do not shout at me.
Senator Tkachuk: I will shout at you as much as I want.
Senator Manning: This is out of hand. I am sitting here as a member of the committee —
The Chair: On a point of order. The chair on a point of order.
Senator Manning: I am sitting down here as a member of this committee with a question —
Senator Tkachuk: Recognize my colleague.
The Chair: I won't. I am sorry. You are out of order.
Senator Manning: — and I cannot ask the question. There is a problem here. There is a serious problem here.
The Chair: The chair is entitled to hear as much as the chair wishes —
Senator Tkachuk: The chair has lost the confidence of the committee.
Senator Manning: I have a question — I am asking a question.
Senator Tkachuk: The chair has lost the confidence of the committee.
Senator Manning: I will keep asking the question. I asked the question, and it was raised with Internal Economy.
The Chair: I am sorry. He is out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: You are not a chair.
Senator Manning: — and I am asking the question for clarification.
The Chair: You are out of order as well.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not out of order.
The Chair: Please turn off that microphone as well.
Senator Tkachuk: Do not.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Shut us all off. Shut all the Conservatives off. That is what the chair wants.
The Chair: You can keep shouting, and people will watch you, but you are out of order.
He is out order. He is still out of order.
Senator Manning: We have the rulings of the Internal Economy Committee, and we are trying to vote here on a point of order, on a motion on the floor by Senator Banks, and I have no problem with the motion on the floor by Senator Banks.
I only asked a simple question: Does the ruling of Internal Economy Committee supersede this committee? Because if that is the ruling of the Internal Economy Committee, I am only asking the question in order to vote on this. My God, if I cannot ask a simple question to clarify —
The Chair: There is a not a vote before you, sir. There is a question for the chair to rule on as to whether there is a point or order or not.
Senator Manning: I asked the question, and you would not bother to answer the question. As a member of the committee, I would at least deserve the respect to answer the question.
The Chair: I am sorry. Not —
Senator Manning: What are we at here? We are here on behalf of Canadians across the country —
The Chair: You will have to wait your turn.
Senator Manning: — and I came on this committee because I was interested in the committee —
The Chair: You will have to wait your turn and abide by the rules.
Senator Manning: I came on this committee and I sit down and ask a simple question, and I am being turned back on when I asked a question. I did not travel here to sit down and ask a question to be turned back by you and nobody else.
The Chair: You can shout all you like, but you are not going to get an answer.
Senator Manning: You will not shut me off; you will not shut me up. I asked a question. Nobody answered the question.
I want an answer to the question: Does the ruling of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration supersede the rulings of this committee here? That is a simple question, with a simple answer, and we do not need to be arguing over it.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like to answer that question. If the contract is between the contractor and the Senate, that is why it goes to the Internal Economy Committee, not the originating group that requested the contract, which is all we do as members of this committee.
The Chair: There is a point of order before us.
Could you please read the point of order again, please?
Ms. Anwar: That the motion before the committee contravenes the Internal Economy Committee policy on the authorization of committee contracts.
The Chair: Fine.
I rule against that motion for the following reason: The Senate recognizes that committees are their own master, and the full committee that we have here can override its subcommittee, the steering committee, any time it chooses. When the full committee chooses to take an issue and is seized with an issue, which it is now, that takes precedence over the subcommittee. That is why we are here meeting to discuss this issue now as a full committee. Clearly, nine people have more moral authority than three people on a subcommittee.
Senator Tkachuk: I am going to challenge the ruling of the chair.
The Chair: You may do that.
Senator Tkachuk: Could we have a vote?
The Chair: All those in favour of the challenge?
Senator Tkachuk: I would like to have a called vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, a recorded vote.
The Chair: Certainly.
Ms. Anwar: The question is: Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Day.
Senator Day: I support the chair's ruling.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Kenny.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Meighen.
Senator Meighen: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: I support the chair's ruling.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: No.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Zimmer.
Senator Zimmer: I support the chair as well.
Ms. Anwar: Five yeas; four nays.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
This brings us back to Senator Banks' motion. Those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Those opposed?
Senator Tkachuk: I would like a recorded vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote, please.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Day.
Senator Day: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Kenny.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Meighen.
Senator Meighen: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Zimmer.
Senator Zimmer: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Five yeas; four nays.
The Chair: Senator Banks' first motion is carried.
Senator Banks, could you repeat your second motion, please?
Senator Banks: It is essentially the same motion I made last Wednesday, which we agreed to defer to today, that, notwithstanding the motion adopted on March 2, 2009, by this committee, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of five members rather than three, the five members being the chair, the deputy chair, and myself, Senator Banks, and one other person to be named by the deputy chair and one other person to be named by the chair.
Speaking to the motion — the only time that I will — the reasons for it are contained in all the discussions that we have had up until now. In order to function properly, we need to have a larger steering committee so that it is not possible for one person, such as myself or anyone else, to simply obviate the business of the steering committee by not being there.
The Chair: Thank you.
I have Senator Wallin, Senator Meighen and Senator Nolin.
Senator Wallin: I was trying to get in before we moved on to the next question. Following up on Senator Manning's request, I would like to ask that the vote be forwarded to the Clerk of the Senate so we would get some clarification from him and from Internal Economy, because, back to our original point, I do not think we can just declare that we will change the rules unilaterally. I would like to ask the chair to do that.
The Chair: That request is out of order.
Senator Wallin: I tried to have you recognize me while we were still on the topic, but you did not.
The Chair: I am sorry, but that request is out of order. You can move something in the chamber, if you want.
Senator Meighen: I wanted to ask the mover of the motion a question.
Have we reached the point where you, Senator Banks, are supporting a proposal that would mean that decisions affecting all committee members would be taken by a group that would not necessarily be representative of both parties?
Senator Banks: No. I am hopeful, and I presume that members of both parties will always do their best to attend steering committee meetings.
Senator Meighen: I am sure, but there is a convention, if not a regulation, within Senate committees. I forget the details of it and its application in which instances. However, there is a very well established practice that no decisions are taken by an executive committee — steering committee, call it what you will — unless representatives of both parties are present. Otherwise, it is one-party rule.
Under your motion, as I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, it would be possible for the committee, as you envisage it, to meet and there may not be representatives of both parties.
Senator Banks: That is theoretically correct. I hope that it is only theoretical, however, in the same sense precisely that if this meeting were to take place and there were no Liberal members present, then the Conservative members present would be able to do the business of the committee, because a quorum is three.
Senator Meighen: I will tell you that if I were the chair, I would feel very uneasy in that instance. I would not like to transact important business of the committee if a Liberal member were not present.
Senator Banks: Nor would anyone, senator, and I am presuming that we would all make our best efforts to ensure that that never happened.
However, for several months in the past, and immediately in the previous Parliament, this committee did operate with members of only one party present. We cannot have a situation in which, simply by refusing to attend, members of one party — I see Senator Tkachuk shaking his head.
Senator Tkachuk: Absolutely.
Senator Banks: We cannot have members of one party stymieing and stopping the business of the committee simply by refusing to attend. I hope very much and I presume, in fact, that the chair and deputy chair would make every effort to ensure, as we do at these meetings, that meetings of the steering committee would include at least one member of each party — there may eventually be more in the Senate. However, Senator Meighen, if that is not possible, then that cannot be allowed to stop the business of the committee or of a subcommittee.
Senator Meighen: There is a far better solution, and that is to ensure that the committee works as it has in past instances. It would be most unfortunate to put into place system whereby a committee meeting could proceed with one party and not the other. I do not think any committee could long succeed on that basis, I really do not.
Senator Nolin: Senator Meighen raised all my questions. After hearing the last comment from Senator Meighen, what is the point of raising the number of steering committee members from three to five?
Senator Banks: I am presuming that you asked me a question, Senator Nolin.
Senator Nolin: Yes.
Senator Banks: The reason is that a quorum, according to the Rules of the Senate, which we certainly cannot change, is three. However, in the instance, for example, of last Wednesday's — I think it was Wednesday.
The Chair: Tuesday.
Senator Banks: Last Tuesday's proposed, properly called subcommittee meeting, which would have dealt with a number of issues, including some with which we have dealt today, the meeting could not take place because no quorum was present. That is not an acceptable situation as far as I am concerned. The business of the committee or of the subcommittee cannot be stopped simply by the determined absence of members of one or another of our parties.
Senator Nolin: Quorum being three, not five, means that the point raised by Senator Meighen would be a possibility. It means that a decision could be taken by only one party.
Senator Banks: I do not think that any committee or subcommittee would be comfortable, to use Senator Meighen's word, in taking decisions of any substantive nature without members of the other party being present. However, historically, Senator Nolin, I reiterate that this committee functioned, and functioned quite well, for several months when members of one of the parties declined to attend its meetings.
The fact that those members declined to attend its meetings, or the fact that Senator Wallin declined to attend a meeting of the steering committee last week, cannot be permitted to stop the business of the committee. The corollary to that is that no one wants that to happen. Everyone hopes that members of all sides will be present at the meetings when they are called.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Chair, because the motion is referring to a rule or a decision taken by the full committee at the first meeting, perhaps we could ask the clerk to read the decision that was taken at that time. It referred to the work of the steering committee.
Ms. Anwar: This was from Monday, March 2, 2009. The Honourable Senator Moore moved:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Senator Nolin: Senator Banks, is that what you want to change?
Senator Banks: That is correct; that motion — three to five, on the understanding and assumption that we would always try to have members, as we always do, of all sides present at all meetings. However we cannot have a situation in which, if one side decides not to attend a meeting or the meeting after that, or the meeting after that or the meeting after that, the business of the committee simply stops.
Senator Nolin: Thank you.
Senator Wallin: I would like to propose an amendment, so you can tell me when would be the right time.
Before we get to that, I have a couple of points on this ongoing debate about how many steering committees have been called.
Clerk, can you check for me, please, and let the committee know when the last time the chair called a steering committee prior to last week, and when a formal notice and agenda had been sent out?
Ms. Anwar: It was on or around May 11, May 12. I do not have the exact date.
Senator Wallin: The first part of May?
Ms. Anwar: Yes.
Senator Wallin: Unfortunately, I was not able to raise this next issue at the appropriate time, so I have to raise it at this point. We asked Senator Banks for his recollection of the conversation that occurred between the three senators and you when I walked into the room. We have very differing views of what I said and what was said, so I will have to ask you at some point for your recollections on that.
At some point I would like to propose, in following both Senator Meighen's and Senator Nolin's concerns, that if Senator Banks really believes that it would be inappropriate, unacceptable and probably not credible to have a steering committee that meets without a member of the government or a member of the opposition present, then that should, perhaps, be included in your motion. Also, while we are at it, we should ensure that we always get formal notices well in advance for these motions.
I do not know if the time is correct, but you can tell me if it is correct.
The Chair: You can move a motion right now, senator.
Senator Wallin: Let me just say that we oppose, on principle, the move to five members.
If that is Senator Banks' motion, and given our severe reservations about that kind of move, we would like to include that there be a quorum of three and that a member of the government or a member of the minority party be present at all steering meetings and involved in all decision-making.
The Chair: Thank you.
Will you read back the motion when you have it transcribed, please, clerk?
Ms. Anwar: Senator Wallin, correct me if I have this down wrong.
Senator Wallin: Yes, we will have to work on it.
Ms. Anwar: Your motion in amendment is:
That steering committee meetings have a quorum of three and that a member of the government be present at all meetings.
Senator Wallin: Yes. I have to take your advice on this, clerk. We believe that this move is probably not — I do not want to say the word ``legal'' but probably in breach of precedent and common practice. I want the motion to clearly state that we oppose the move to five people but, whatever the number or whatever the composition of the steering committee, that a member of the government of the day, or the minority party — if this is the case and if the tables are reversed in terms of number at some point — be present and be required for quorum to be called and recognized. I do not know how to word that. You would know better than I.
The Chair: We need to pause for a moment, colleagues, while the clerk makes a note before we continue the discussion.
Senator Zimmer: Chair, I have a point of clarification; am I allowed?
The Chair: Could we just let the clerk get to things?
Ms. Anwar: The amendment would read, after Senator Banks' motion:
. . . , provided that there is a quorum of three and that a member of the government be present at all meetings of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure and be involved in all decisions taken.
Senator Wallin: I do not know whether it should read ``government'' or whether it should read ``minority party.'' I am sure the Liberals would want to anticipate tables —
Senator Tkachuk: A member of both parties.
Ms. Anwar: A member of both government and opposition?
Senator Wallin: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Meighen: I think this is a point of order, Mr. Chair. I am suggesting, and tell me if you disagree, that we vote on Senator Banks' motion first because, if that fails, then we do not have a problem. If it carries, then Senator Wallin's motion would pertain to the carried motion.
The Chair: With respect, she asked to amend his motion. Therefore, we should deal with the amendment before we deal with the full motion.
Senator Meighen: I do not think that is worded as an amendment.
The Chair: I agree, but having said that, it is up to Senator Wallin to propose whatever motion she chooses.
Senator Wallin: This is why I am trying to put the language in.
The Chair: Or whatever amendment she chooses.
Senator Wallin: Fearing that we will be ruled out of order, I am trying to intervene when I have an opportunity to do so.
Senator Meighen: I suspect we know the result of the vote, senators.
Senator Nolin: Provided that the quorum is three, forget about that part of the sentence. You want to amend the motion of Senator Banks by saying ``and that.''
Senator Wallin: We could simply cover it by saying ``regardless of the size of the steering committee.''
Senator Nolin: You do not have to say that.
The Chair: If you would given the clerk a chance. You asked her to put your —
Senator Wallin: I am actually answering another question.
The Chair: I am asking that we just be quiet for a moment. The clerk is trying hard to put your views into effect, and when she finishes, she will read something to us all.
Ms. Anwar: So it would be Senator Banks' motion?
The Chair: We would like to have the amendment to the motion, please.
Ms. Anwar: It would read:
And that there be a quorum of three and that a member of both the government and the opposition be present at all meetings and be involved in all decisions taken.
The Chair: Does that satisfy you, Senator Wallin?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Banks: I have a question for Senator Wallin.
The Chair: Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Senator Wallin, is it the intent of your amendment to my motion that no meeting of the steering committee could take place unless there was a member of each party there?
Senator Wallin: Absolutely.
Senator Banks: Thank you.
The Chair: Question?
Senator Day: Question.
The Chair: Those in favour of the amendment? Opposed?
Senator Tkachuk: Could we have a recorded vote on that?
The Chair: Yes, you may.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Opposed.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Day.
Senator Day: Opposed.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Kenny.
The Chair: Opposed.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: For.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Meighen.
Senator Meighen: For.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: Opposed.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: For.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: For.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Zimmer.
Senator Zimmer: Against.
The Chair: This brings us back to Senator Banks' motion.
Senator Day: Question?
The Chair: Those in favour of Senator Banks' motion?
Senator Wallin: Could —
The Chair: Those opposed?
Senator Wallin: Sorry, but could we just have that read back before there is a vote?
The Chair: We just had the vote.
Senator Wallin: No, we did not actually. I was trying to get your attention.
The Chair: I am sorry; we just had the vote.
Senator Tkachuk: Let us vote for or against. What are we voting here? Are we finished the ``for'' vote?
The Chair: We finished both votes.
Senator Tkachuk: No. Well, then, I want a recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Tkachuk: Before the recorded vote, could you please read the motion?
Ms. Anwar: The motion reads:
That notwithstanding the motion adopted on March 2, 2009, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of five members: the chair, the deputy chair, the Honourable Senator Banks, one other senator, to be designated by the deputy chair and one other senator, to be designated by the chair.
The Chair: Now for a recorded vote, please.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: For.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Day.
Senator Day: In favour.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Kenny.
The Chair: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Against.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Meighen.
Senator Meighen: Against.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: For.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Against.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: Against.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Zimmer.
Senator Zimmer: For.
Ms. Anwar: Five yeas; four nays.
The Chair: Senator Banks' motion is carried.
Senator Tkachuk: Could I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair? We decided on March 2 to create a steering committee of three members. I think that rescinding an earlier decision on the same issue would require a two-thirds vote, and I do not believe you have that.
The Chair: No, that is not in order, and that is not the case.
Senator Tkachuk: I am just pointing out that a two-thirds vote is required to rescind a previous motion, and that is exactly what we just did. It requires two thirds. You do not have two thirds, so that motion fails.
The Chair: No, that is not true.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Kenny, it is true.
The Chair: No.
Senator Tkachuk: I am sorry, Senator Kenny. You are wrong, chair, on this matter. You cannot rescind a motion.
The Chair: Senator Day.
Senator Day: Mr. Chair, I believe I can bring some harmony back to this meeting —
Senator Tkachuk: Good luck to you, Senator Day.
Senator Day: — by proposing a motion with respect to the various border visits during the summer that I believe have —
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Day, we have not finished with the question of whether this motion failed or not. You cannot talk by this, Senator Day. This is an important question.
The Chair: Senator Day has the floor.
Senator Tkachuk: No, I had the floor. You required a two-thirds vote and you did not get it, so this motion fails.
The Chair: That is not true.
Senator Tkachuk: You cannot just say that.
Senator Wallin: Can we have the clerk give us the facts on that before we proceed?
Senator Tkachuk: You cannot just say that, Senator Kenny. That is not right.
The Chair: I did just say it. You have recourse on the floor of the chamber.
Senator Tkachuk: I will take it. I will take it to the floor of the Senate; you can bet on it.
First, I want to challenge your ruling so we have a vote on this. I want to be clear on what all members of this committee feel about this.
Senator Moore: We have moved past that.
The Chair: We have moved past that and Senator Day has the floor.
Senator Tkachuk: No, no, no, no. You cannot do that, senator.
The Chair: Senator Day.
Senator Day: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator, a point of order. We did not deal with this issue.
The Chair: You are out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: You are out of order. You are ignoring the Rules of the Senate. You have ignored them twice today. This is the second time.
The Chair: I am sorry, Senator Tkachuk. You are out of —
Senator Tkachuk: You require a two-thirds vote, and I want to have a vote. I want to hear —
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk —
Senator Tkachuk: I want to have a vote. I challenge the chair's ruling.
The Chair: You are out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: I challenge the chair's ruling.
The Chair: You are out of order; I am sorry.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not out of order. You can deal with me in any way you want, but you will not get away with this, chair. This is not correct.
Senator Manning: What is the vote being challenged?
Senator Tkachuk: I am challenging the chair. Let us have a vote. I want to have a vote. You should not be afraid of the vote.
Senator Moore: We have moved past that.
Senator Day: I move that the trips to various border posts —
Senator Tkachuk: No, I brought this up. He just ignored me and went to Senator Day.
Senator Day: — take place on the following dates: Ontario borders, July 15 to 17, 2009.
Senator Tkachuk: This is not a Senate committee. This is a bunch of bullies is what this is.
Senator Day: Quebec borders, July 20 to 21, 2009; Maritime borders, July 22 to —
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Day.
The Chair: You are out of order, Senator Tkachuk and shut —
Senator Tkachuk: I am not out of order.
Senator Day: — 24, 2009; British Columbia borders, July 29 to 31, 2009; Alberta borders, September 9 to 11, 2009.
Senator Tkachuk: What is this motion?
Senator Day: To ensure that we are all in agreement here, it is noted that the committee has agreed to cover travel costs for two members on each of these trips which I have just read out, ideally a member from the government and one from the opposition. However, notwithstanding previous agreements, if a member from either side is unavailable and cannot be replaced by a member from their own side, the committee shall pay the expense for two members from the other side, if available.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: Can you repeat that motion?
Senator Day: No.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like you to repeat it. Either that or hand it out.
Senator Day: Sir, I tried three times to read this motion at the request of the chair. I was given the floor —
Senator Tkachuk: You were not given the floor; you took the floor.
The Chair: No.
Senator Day: — and you continued to interrupt me.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like to hear that motion again. I have a right to hear it.
Clerk, could you read the motion, please?
The Chair: Yes, the clerk can.
Senator Manning: This is being broadcast, is it?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Day: Absolutely, it is broadcast.
Ms. Anwar: The motion reads:
That the fact-finding trips to various border posts take place on the following dates:
Ontario borders: July 15-17, 2009,
Quebec borders: July 20-21, 2009,
Maritimes borders: July 22-24, 2009,
B.C. borders: July 29-31, 2009, and
Alberta borders: September 9-11, 2009; and
It is noted that the committee has agreed to cover travel costs for two members on each of these trips, ideally a member from the Government and one from the Opposition. However, notwithstanding previous agreements, if a member from either side is unavailable and cannot be replaced by a member from their own side, the committee shall pay the expenses for two members from the other side if available.
Senator Day: That is precisely the wording that I read out. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: Could I ask a question? We had an agreement to go to Alberta on July 6, 7, 8. How did this get changed to July 29, which is during our national caucus meeting? No one talked to me about it.
How did this happen, Senator Day? The usual cooperation and consultation, or what? That is our national caucus meeting. I agreed to July 6, 7 and 8, and it was the chair who could not go. All of a sudden, it is on a new date and no one has talked to me about it.
Senator Day: Well, it is my understanding that this —
Senator Tkachuk: That could be, but it ain't mine.
The Chair: I am sorry, but he is answering your question.
Senator Tkachuk: Okay, let him answer it.
Answer the question, Senator Day.
The Chair: Order, Senator Tkachuk. You are not here to push anybody around and give orders.
Senator Tkachuk: You do it.
Answer the question.
Senator Wallin: We had agreement on this and you have breached that.
Senator Tkachuk: We had agreement, Senator Day.
Senator Wallin: This was all agreed to and now it has been changed, again. This is what we are dealing with on a daily basis.
The Chair: You are out of order, Senator Wallin.
Senator Day: My understanding is that there has been consultation on this. I appreciate that it is very difficult to satisfy all senators. That is why this committee is just sending two during these various visits to border crossings.
If we cannot make it — I am proposing these dates based on consultation and the information I obtained that these were the best dates. The motion is now before us, so let us talk about it.
Senator Banks: Colleagues, I do not know if anyone knew that the Conservative convention was going to be on July 29. I do not think that it is out of order for us to look at a different date now that we know — if we now know — that the Conservative convention is occupying one or the other of those dates. I do not think it would be unreasonable at all for us to look at changing the date.
Am I correct that you are talking about the B.C. border date?
Senator Tkachuk: All I know and the point that I was trying to make, senator, is I want Senator Day to know that I do not believe that he knew that I already had a date that I thought was booked. I am sure that he had nothing to do with it; that was the point of my question.
All I am trying to say, Senator Banks, is that, first, this motion comes as a big surprise; but, second, there was consultation regarding July 6, 7 and 8. I said that I would go to the Alberta border visit because I am from the West. All of a sudden that has been changed to July 29, but no one consulted me on that. No one talked to any of our members about this, as far as I know.
The Chair: With respect, Senator Tkachuk, you were reported as not wanting to travel any time after July 15, and then you were reported as saying that you did not want to travel during the month of July.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, you know what I said, Senator Kenny? It was not that at all. I said that if I had my druthers, I do not think we should travel in July and August; but I had already agreed to July 6, 7 and 8, Senator Kenny, which was well before the July 15, and which I thought was generally agreed to and we were going to go.
Senator Banks: With respect to my previous intervention, what are the dates of the Conservative national convention, because I do not think anyone would propose that the committee travel then?
Senator Tkachuk: The last week of July.
Senator Banks: July 27, 28 and 29?
Senator Moore: It is here in Ottawa?
Senator Tkachuk: That is right.
Senator Nolin: And July 30.
Senator Banks: Four days.
Senator Nolin: Monday to Thursday.
Senator Day: That is clearly not going to work. We should not even think about that date.
The Chair: Would you like to adjust that date, Senator Day, to a date in September?
Senator Day: Mr. Chair, my understanding was that these dates were based on consultations that had taken place, and it was on that basis that I made the motion. Since this date is clearly wrong, then I believe that there should be consultation before I propose another date.
Senator Banks: Why do you not do these dates?
Senator Day: Yes. I will leave out the B.C. border dates and we will proceed with the others. There are four others in the motion.
Senator Wallin: I need to hear this. If all the dates have been changed, I just do not know. Everyone should have a moment to check their calendars. If Senator Tkachuk's dates have been moved, I do not know whether others have.
The Chair: That is fair enough. Please, let us pause for a moment.
Senator Tkachuk: Are we not doing a motion?
The Chair: There is no change for Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.
Senator Wallin: Why are we doing a motion?
Senator Tkachuk: We are all willing to go.
The Chair: I am sorry; anyone is entitled to move a motion, senator. You moved amendments.
Senator Tkachuk: It is just good for me, not good for you guys.
The Chair: Has everyone had an opportunity to check their dates?
Senator Nolin: The Quebec one is fine. It is the one that we had agreed to.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Day: That is what I thought.
The Chair: The same is true with Ontario.
Senator Banks: My understanding is that Senator Wallin had agreed to attend the Ontario trip from July 15 to 17; that Senator Nolin had agreed to attend the Quebec border trip from July 20 to 21; and that Senator Meighen had agreed to attend the Maritimes border trip from July 22 to 24. We are agreed that the proposed dates in the motion, since they conflict with the national caucus of the Conservative Party, are wrong and have to be redrafted, after consideration. I think that the Alberta border dates, September 9 to 11, are clear.
Senator Tkachuk: I want to make it clear, Senator Banks, that even if the national caucus meeting was not on the last week of July, I had already agreed to dates. I was not attempting to obstruct us from visiting those border points in any way.
Therefore, why was this motion made? Surely, I should have been consulted about the dates that were put into the motion by Senator Day. He put into the motion that those are the dates for the western trip when I had already agreed to different dates.
Senator Day: You had agreed to July 6, 7 and 8?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, that is what we all agreed to. However, I think the chair could not make it that day, so we were looking for other dates. The other dates could have been September. I was willing to go in September, but I had already given my dates. Everyone had agreed to July 6, 7 and 8 and then there was a change.
Senator Banks: There is a conflict and we have agreed that we have to change it.
Senator Tkachuk: Good.
The Chair: If I understand things, we have an agreement for Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes.
Senator Day: Alberta?
The Chair: What about Alberta on September 9 to 11?
Senator Tkachuk: I have to check my schedule. I do not know.
The Chair: In fairness, that is what happened on every other consultation and then there was no agreement.
Senator Tkachuk: You know what, that is not true.
Senator Wallin: That is not true.
Senator Tkachuk: I did agree to a date.
The Chair: Would you agree that you said you would not travel any time in July?
Senator Tkachuk: No, I did not say that.
Senator Wallin: No, he said that was his preference.
Senator Tkachuk: You quoted me as saying after July 15. That is exactly correct. I had agreed to July 6, 7 and 8, but it was not in your particular calendar; therefore, you wanted it changed.
The Chair: No, actually, I am available on all those dates.
Senator Tkachuk: Good, then let us do it. Why not do it July 6, 7 and 8? I am ready to go.
Senator Banks: Because.
Senator Tkachuk: Because what?
Senator Banks: We are contemplating taking advantage of the fact of your availability for an additional piece of work during those dates.
Senator Tkachuk: What is that?
Senator Zimmer: I want to make a motion to attend —
Senator Day: We already have a motion on the floor.
The Chair: I know, but he has asked a question.
Senator Zimmer: I am just going to ask a question.
Senator Tkachuk: What is the question?
Senator Zimmer: My intent is to place a motion on the floor to visit the East Coast military bases at that time, since we have a conflict here. I want to make a further motion that we visit the East Coast military bases from July 5 to 10. That was the reason, but my understanding was —
Senator Tkachuk: The Senate is not sitting during that time.
Senator Wallin: No.
Senator Zimmer: My understanding is that there was consultation and agreement on this.
Senator Wallin: Absolutely not. It was a matter of discussion between myself and other members of the Liberal leadership and everything else. It was certainly not resolved.
The Chair: Which members of the Liberal leadership, Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: I do not think I need to explain that to you right now.
The Chair: Right. No one on this committee, though? You cannot get away with a fast one like that.
Senator Wallin: Yes, we did actually have that. One more time, for the record, senator, when I came in to the meeting where you and Senator Banks —
Senator Tkachuk: How does he do this?
Senator Wallin: — were seated outside the committee, and I had heard from various people inside the house that you were in fact going from person to person to consult with Liberals only about a Liberal-only trip to military bases, I went to find the two of you to ask if that was indeed the case.
In the process, I consulted some people who had attended the meeting and were privy to the same discussion. You did not consult anybody other than, perhaps, some members of the Liberal Party. You did not consult members of the Conservative Party, this committee or anybody else, other than your colleagues.
The Chair: Senator Wallin, throughout the piece, we have been discussing all senators attending all trips. I am sorry; we have not been able to arrive at any agreement, and I cannot help that.
Senator Wallin: No, actually, you said that and left, obviously, one of your colleagues with the impression that you had consulted on both these issues: on the issue of the times of the border trips and the issue of the times of the base trips. You did not consult with the deputy chair, the steering committee, individual members or the Conservative leadership. You did not consult on those issues. You should, perhaps, not misrepresent that to your own committee members because it puts us all in this bind.
The Chair: Nice try, Senator Wallin, but that simply is not the case.
Senator Wallin: You did not consult with us. For the record, you did not consult with members of the committee who are not the Liberal members of the committee.
The Chair: Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Just so that members will understand: Senator Wallin, this committee has never done a committee trip with only members of one party. It never has and I hope that it never will.
The Chair: Actually, it has, senator. There was a period of time —
Senator Banks: A committee meeting?
The Chair: There was a period of time —
Senator Banks: When the Conservatives would not attend, yes. Other than that specific period of time, we have never done that.
The Chair: We have a motion from Senator Day before us.
Senator Day: I am not sure whether we have agreed to the B.C. border trip for July 6, 7 and 8.
The Chair: I think there is a consensus that we should not travel when there is a Conservative caucus.
Senator Day: The dates had been agreed to: July 6, 7 and 8. Should we put that into the motion, or should we leave B.C. borders out entirely?
The Chair: My view is we should leave B.C. borders out until we deal with Senator Zimmer.
Senator Tkachuk: I think that is just great. Put in a new motion for a different meeting. That is just great.
Senator Nolin: There are only three sets of dates.
Senator Day: One, two, three, four.
Senator Nolin: Alberta is on in September.
Senator Day: Alberta is in September, yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Just a minute now. I thought there was consultation happening here for September. I said that I have not checked my calendar. I think I have the right to at least figure out if I am available on those dates. I already gave the dates on which I am available.
Now you have a new agenda. The new agenda is that we go somewhere else on the dates that I agreed to, so I am pulled off one to satisfy all your interests. That is great. Why do not all of you go in September?
Senator Banks: We are.
Senator Tkachuk: Good, rather than July 6, 7 and 8.
Senator Wallin: Do you have that planned, Senator Banks?
The Chair: You are the one who suggested September for Alberta.
Senator Tkachuk: I did suggest September.
The Chair: Then there are some dates here for you.
Senator Tkachuk: Good. Can I have a look at them? Then I will get back to you.
The Chair: You can have a look at them and get back to us. We can still pass the motion.
Senator Tkachuk: That is highly unfair, chair; that is not the way to do business. You dumped me off the dates I agreed to so that you could get a new motion on the floor. Then you are imposing new dates on me.
The Chair: I am sorry —
Senator Tkachuk: What is going on here?
The Chair: You cannot keep a straight face. You have been changing your dates for the last couple of months.
Senator Tkachuk: I have not. I agreed to July 6, 7 and 8 and have always agreed to the dates. You are the one who wanted to change them. When I found that out, I said, ``If you want my particular opinion, I do not think we should do these trips in July and August at all.'' That is a perfectly legitimate thing to say, and I said I would be available in September.
No one has phoned me about September, so surely we are not in any rush. It is only June; we have lots of time.
The Chair: You must admit there are some inconsistencies, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: I have no inconsistencies, chair.
The Chair: When you say you are not willing to travel in July —
Senator Tkachuk: I did not say that. I agreed to dates.
Senator Wallin: Yes, he did.
Senator Tkachuk: You are the one who changed the dates.
Senator Manning: I think we need some counselling here.
The Chair: Senator Day, it is your motion. How do you want to deal with it?
Senator Day: I have struck the B.C. border visit. I think the rest of it is okay. It is based on consultation that has taken place: Ontario borders, July 15 to 17; Quebec borders, July 20 to 21; Maritime borders, July 22 to 24; and Alberta borders, September 9 to 11 — all in 2009.
Senator Zimmer: Question.
The Chair: Those in favour? Those opposed?
Senator Tkachuk: Are we imposing the September dates?
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Zimmer: Not B.C.
Senator Tkachuk: Not B.C., okay.
The Chair: Next item.
Senator Zimmer: I move:
That the committee's fact-finding trip to visit the East Coast military bases be scheduled to take place from July 5-10, 2009.
It is noted, again, that the committee has agreed to cover travel costs for two members on each of these trips.
The Chair: It is not the full committee, Senator Zimmer.
Senator Zimmer: So it is a full committee, fine.
Senator Tkachuk: Is this a committee trip?
Senator Zimmer: To take place from July 5 to 10. Yes, it is a full committee trip. It is for the East Coast military bases, July 5 to 10.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not think we can have a committee meeting in the summertime without the permission of the whips.
The Chair: The committee can travel during that period.
Senator Banks: I think the rule is we cannot hold hearings but that we can hold fact-finding trips.
Senator Zimmer: It is a fact-finding trip. It is not hearings. There are no official witnesses.
The Chair: There is a motion before us.
Senator Tkachuk: I am opposed.
The Chair: We need to call the question.
Senator Zimmer: Question.
The Chair: Those in favour? Opposed?
Senator Tkachuk: I am opposed.
The Chair: The motion carries.
Senator Tkachuk: Can I have that as a recorded vote, please?
The Chair: Yes, of course.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: In favour.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Day.
Senator Day: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Kenny.
The Chair: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Against.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Zimmer.
Senator Zimmer: In favour.
Ms. Anwar: Five yeas; three nays.
The Chair: The motion carries.
Is there any other business?
Senator Wallin: I would like to move, as I said in the earlier motion, that the chair be instructed to go to the Clerk of the Senate and get a ruling on whether or not this is acceptable behaviour, with precedent, to leave members of the minority party off when it comes to committee travel and to do it unilaterally. I would like an official ruling.
The Chair: That motion is out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: Without consultation.
Senator Wallin: Yes, without consultation. We can add that in as one.
Senator Tkachuk: That is exactly what you are doing, chair.
The Chair: Is there any other business?
Senator Tkachuk: Are we out of here, chair?
The Chair: Yes, motion to adjourn? Those in favour? Carried.
(The committee adjourned.)