Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 8 - Evidence, May 27, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:20 p.m., pursuant to rule 86(1)(f)(i), for the consideration of a draft report on procedural considerations arising from the amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators; for the consideration of a draft budget and the printing of an updated version of the Rules of the Senate of Canada; and to study the Senate committee system as established under rule 86, taking into consideration the size, mandate and quorum of each committee, the total number of committees, and available human and financial resources.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We have three items of business before us today. First, committee members have before them a copy of the updated draft report on rule changes made necessary by amendments adopted in the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. Members will recall we had a lengthy discussion of those proposed rules at a previous meeting. The committee, as a result of discussions at that meeting, had given directions to Charles Robert to make certain clarifications to those rules, and he is here to explain how he has effected those instructions.
Without further ado, I re-call Charles Robert to the stand to take us through the specific changes and clarifications that he made pursuant to the instructions of honourable senators. Mr. Robert, you have the floor.
Charles Robert, Principal Clerk, Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, at the last meeting, there was a discussion of the rule changes. We gave it to you in two forms, both the fitting into the rules and then in the context of the report that you have in front of you now.
The focus of the discussion centred on one element, and that was the process of having the Speaker or committee chair, when necessary, announce to the house or to the committee the names of those members who made a declaration that had not been retracted prior to a vote.
During the discussion, Senator Corbin raised the point that it ought not be made in such a negative fashion and also, that it could be limited to announcing only the names of the senators present so as not to highlight the fact, perhaps, that a senator had made a declaration, had prudently avoided appearing either before the committee or before the Senate when a vote was anticipated and, therefore, would not be required to have their name called out.
If you turn to page 4 of the report, you will see the section (2) that is highlighted in black that has been redrafted to take into account what seemed to be, based on Senator Corbin's comments, the general consensus of the committee in terms of how we would handle this point.
As it stands now, it reads:
Before any standing vote in the Senate, the Speaker shall announce the names of any Senators present who have made and not retracted a declaration of private interests on the matter, and their names shall not be called during the vote, except to abstain.
[Translation]
The chair of a committee shall do the same before any recorded vote in committee.
[English]
We tried to cover off both possibilities, recognizing full well that if the senator has been attentive to his or her obligations, that senator should not even be there in the committee for the vote. However, if the declaration had been made months before and the senator had forgotten, or the agenda of the committee was more complex and involved more than one item allowing the senator to be present, it might still be useful to have the chair follow a practice similar to that in the house. Again, we are trying to simplify the process to allow for a method that will avoid the complex problem of trying to undo a vote.
If the problem can be avoided, that seems to be the better approach. This process of announcement seems to us, at any rate, the most direct way of doing it.
The Chair: Mr. Robert, how will the Speaker receive the names to announce?
Mr. Robert: As I suggested in the previous meeting, a registry will be kept of all declarations and retractions.
The Chair: Where is that provided for?
Mr. Robert: There was a reference to it on page 3, the declaration of interest in rule 32.1. It makes clear that declarations that are made either in the chamber or in the committee will be noted in the Journals.
From the documents that are filed in the Journals, the table will keep a registry relevant to each bill or motion that comes up for a vote in the same way that the table now keeps timetables for those senators who have participated in debate.
It is counter-checked against the Journals so we have proof that a senator has made a declaration or retracted it, and when a vote is called, we will go to the registry to ensure that the Speaker has a proper list of those senators who are present so that the Speaker is allowed to make the announcement.
The Chair: Senator Brown raised questions about senators retracting at our last meeting where we discussed this matter. Following up on some of his concerns expressed at that meeting, is it clear now that if, in committee, a senator for the first time felt that they may have a conflict, and declared the conflict, that would be picked up by the minutes and by the table and put into the Journals. If, in the meantime, that particular senator received a ruling from the commissioner saying they are not in a conflict so, therefore, they withdraw it, how will that withdrawal be picked up by the Journals?
Mr. Robert: The obligation will be for the senator to retract. If the senator has taken the formal step of making a declaration, and subsequently determines that the declaration was unnecessary, then the formal step of retraction still must be followed. That was the whole purpose, as I understand. Those who are part of the Conflict of Interest Committee and who made the revisions to the code will be able to explain. All we are trying to do with respect to the rules is to integrate those elements of the code that have procedural implications.
The Chair: I do not mean to speak for Senator Brown, but I recall at the last meeting, that issue was one of his concerns.
Senator Brown: Yes, I think Mr. Robert has covered it in this paragraph on page 4, where section 4 of rule 65 is to be replaced by the following:
Before any standing vote in the Senate, the Speaker shall announce the names of any Senators present who have made and not retracted a declaration of private interests on the matter. . . .
My only concern was that the conflict of interest did not need to be published.
Do I understand correctly that the senator could go to the Speaker and say: I have found I do not have a conflict of interest, so therefore I take my name off the list? Is that the way this paragraph reads?
Mr. Robert: Yes, but I think I have the code correct when I say that there are two ways by which either a declaration or a retraction can be filed; by a letter, in writing, or orally. The process as outlined in the code must be followed to authorize the Speaker, if you like, to take note of either the declaration or the retraction. When the Speaker, prior to a vote, makes the announcement, it will be based on whatever has been filed by the senator; either the declaration or the retraction.
Senator Brown: What is the process for a senator who decides to rescind the declaration because the senator does not have a conflict of interest? Does that senator make the declaration to the Speaker?
Mr. Robert: They can, either in writing or orally.
Senator Brown: My argument was that declaring a conflict of interest was voluntary. Then if a senator found out, either through their lawyer or they realized they did not have a conflict with a particular company that might be interested in this bill, they would be able to rescind it voluntarily. I think originally it was to be announced without the senator having had the chance to say: I voluntarily take my name off that list.
I think that is what you are saying in this rule. The rule says that the ``Speaker shall announce the names of any Senators present who have made and not retracted a declaration of private interest.''
That wording satisfies me. I understood before that the Speaker was to read all these names in public, even though they had retracted the declaration, which leads to guilt by whatever.
The Chair: No; thank you.
Senator Joyal: The witness might want to point to paragraph 12(7) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. It is entitled ``Declaration of retraction'':
A Senator may, by declaration made under this section, retract a previous declaration, in which case the Senator may participate in debate or other deliberations and vote on the matter in respect of which the previous declaration was made.
It is clear that once a retraction has been made, the senator resumes his or her status in exactly the same position he or she was before any conflict of interest. The senator does not have to be called by the Speaker at all to signal that he or she no longer has that interest. Senators are restored to the position they were in before they made the declaration. It is a good question to ask, certainly.
If I have the floor, Mr. Chair, I want to underline the text in which we have made clear reference to the fact that the senator must be present, on page 4 of the report, paragraph (4). I want to read it again:
Before any standing vote in the Senate, the Speaker shall announce the names of any Senators present who have made and not retracted a declaration...
In other words, if I have made a declaration but I am not in the Senate chamber when the vote takes place, the Speaker will not announce that I will not participate in the vote. To me, the word ``present'' has that meaning. I think it is important that we all understand this point so that no one can question the fact that the Speaker has not announced that a senator was not entitled to vote before it took place. Am I right?
Mr. Robert: Yes, the whole intent, as taken from the direction of the committee at the last meeting, was to minimize any possibility of embarrassment. A senator who has declared an interest is prevented, under the terms of the code, from participating in the debate, and certainly from voting.
If the senator is fully aware of the obligations under which the senator is operating and absents himself or herself deliberately from the vote, the Speaker will not highlight the fact by announcing the name. By virtue of not being present, there is an acknowledgement that the Code of Conflict is being followed.
Senator Joyal: It is important that information be on the record today, chair, to avoid any misunderstanding of the role and responsibility of the Speaker to announce before the vote that the senator will not participate.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, that same section also says ``their names shall not be called during the vote. . .'' When the clerk names the senators, their names cannot be called. Further on, it says ``. . . except to abstain.''
To me, all of the steps in the voting procedure — the yeas, the nays and the abstentions — are part of the vote. Could that be confusing?
Senator Fraser: No, I do not think so.
Senator Robichaud: Abstaining is participating in the vote.
Senator Fraser: Yes, but if, during the vote, the person rises to vote in favour, then the clerk simply does not say his or her name, but if the person rises when the clerk calls for abstentions, the person's name is called. I believe that is how it works.
Senator Robichaud: I just wanted to raise the point. I was not trying to make things complicated, but it seems that is what I did.
Senator Corbin: Senator Robichaud said that abstaining is still a form of participating in the vote. On the contrary, the formal vote is made up of the yeas and nays. It must be assumed that the senator who is not voting because of a conflict of interest remains seated. Therefore, if the senator remains seated, the clerk cannot call his or her name. Is that not right?
Mr. Robert: Yes.
Senator Corbin: That settles it. Once the formal vote has been taken, before the clerk announces the results of the vote, the Speaker of the Senate asks if there are any senators who wish to abstain. At that point, the senator who was seated rises, and the senator's abstention is acknowledged and recorded as such. Abstaining is not participating in the vote.
[English]
The Chair: It is covered by the rules as well at the bottom of page 3 in the report:
(a) shall not participate in debate or vote on the matter in the Senate, but may abstain.
Senator Corbin: There is the formal part of the vote; abstentions and the rest.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We have a difference of opinion. In my mind, a vote includes the yeas, the nays and the abstentions, and the vote is over once the results are announced. But I will not persist. If everyone understands what we want to do, I agree.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: I think it is confusing. One of my concerns the last time was that we not have a Speaker drawing attention to someone who has taken the proper action and abstained from the deliberations, et cetera. With the word ``present,'' I think you have gone a long way to allay some of my fears.
. . . the Speaker shall announce the names of any Senators present who have made and not retracted a declaration of private interests on the matter, and their names shall not be called during the vote, except to abstain.
How do you know before that vote that person will abstain?
The Chair: Because they have to be present.
Senator Andreychuk: They have to be present, and their name is called out, and they sit there. Will you presume they are there for the purposes of abstaining? I think we are unnecessarily complicating this issue.
That is where I become confused, because if I do not want to participate, the best way not to participate is not to be in the room, and I think that is what would happen. I walk in and sit down in my chair. I do not speak to the Speaker, but I have already filed a declaration. The Speaker reads my declaration that I have a conflict, we proceed to the vote, and what do we do?
The Chair: The ``yeas'' and ``nays'' are called for, and then the Speaker calls for abstentions.
Senator Andreychuk: What if the senator does not stand, and what if the senator does stand?
Mr. Robert: The process of voting has not changed by virtue of inserting this item into the rules. To be recognized for a vote, a senator must stand. If a senator is present in the chamber and wants to witness the vote in some sense, then the Speaker, under the terms of this rule, is obliged to call out the senator's name, as a reminder to avoid the problem of undoing a vote. However, if the senator does not stand with the ``yeas'' or ``nays'' and chooses not to stand with the abstentions, the name of the senator will not be called, because the only way their name can be called for recognition is if they stand.
Senator Andreychuk: I think that is where the confusion comes. Maybe I have not thought about this matter within the Senate context, but within other parliamentary contexts and organizational contexts, there are a number of reasons why people abstain, and it is not only because they have a conflict. We have allowed for a while, by convention, people to stand up later to explain through their statements what the abstention meant, and the reasons they give are not only because they have a conflict. There are all kinds of reasons why they abstain.
Is there an inference that senators abstain not because they have a conflict but because they might balance the vote in a different way; because they will influence the process in some way? I do not know.
The Chair: Mr. Robert, as you know, we already have a code, and the code exists and is accepted. What you are trying to accomplish with these rules is to use the language of the code and make sure it is consistent with what is in the code.
Section 14 on page 11 of the code says:
Prohibition on voting
14. A Senator who has made a declaration under section 12, or a Senator who is required to make such a declaration but has not yet done so, may not vote on the matter but may abstain.
In your rule, you are tracking the language used in the code.
Mr. Robert: Thank you for drawing that matter to my attention, Senator Oliver. That is exactly right.
Senator Andreychuk: That may be, but I think the rule leads to confusion.
Since I have the floor, my second comment relates to the sentence, ``The chair of a committee shall do the same before any recorded vote in committee.''
It seems to me that sentence was slipped in under the duties of the Speaker section. Should that sentence not be highlighted elsewhere, from an editorial point of view, an (a) and (b)? That comment is an editorial one.
Senator Joyal: On that point, because I think it is important, there is a distinction, senator, between a senator who has a conflict during a committee debate and a senator who has a conflict at the final stage of a vote. On page 3 of the report, rule 32.1(2)(a) and (b) reads:
Subject to section (3), when a Senator has made a declaration of private interest on a matter, the declaration, until retracted, shall be valid for all subsequent proceedings on the matter, whether in the Senate or in committee, and the Senator:
(a) shall not participate in debate or vote on that matter in the Senate, but may abstain; and
(b) shall withdraw from committee meetings during any proceedings on that matter.
In other words, if a senator has a conflict, the senator withdraws from the proceedings in the committee. Therefore, the scenario you have put forward, that there is a vote and the senator is there at the table, and the chair of the committee sees that the senator because is present, then of course the chair would signal to the committee members that the senator will not vote. In other words, if the senator is not there because the senator has withdrawn, the senator is not there for the vote and does not need to be reminded that the senator cannot vote.
Senator Andreychuk: Maybe I am not making myself clear. I know what the code says, and it says that the senator can abstain. I am saying that now that we are giving a special duty to the Speaker to go through a process, are we limiting abstentions only to conflict of interest, because abstentions are used for many purposes? In the code, we drew out one purpose for the abstention, and that purpose does not preclude abstentions and other purposes. I am saying that the rule is confusing to me. Perhaps it is not confusing to anyone else. I thought Senator Robichaud raised the abstention issue as confusing.
Senator Joyal: I myself have abstained on issues, but for different reasons than conflict of interest.
Senator Andreychuk: However, if we word the rule this way, it draws us into a Speaker's ruling perhaps, saying what the abstention is for. That is the only place where a purpose has been identified. No other purposes have been identified. Are we restricting abstentions to one reason?
Senator Fraser: I do not think we need to worry about the confusion, because those people who are not entitled to vote will have been identified previously by the Speaker. Anyone else who abstains is clearly doing so for another reason. However, I think we have to allow those people to be in the chamber for purposes of quorum.
Senator Brown: I started out worrying about someone voluntarily saying they were in a conflict of interest and then finding out they were not. I did not want that person to be proclaimed and tied to a stockade or anything in order to say that they were in error. I think our drafter has done a good job on section (4) of rule 65. It answers all my concerns, anyway.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on the basis of that comment, is it agreed that the report as amended be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I present the report to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the second item of the three items we have for today deals with the committee study. We have had the benefit, as you know, of hearing from the assistant librarian, and we have before us the results of the survey we distributed to senators. I understand that a few responses may still come in. Some honourable senators have spoken to me and said they are still working on their response, and they will send them.
Do honourable senators want to make any observations now to the committee about what they have read, heard or learned on the subject, to help give instructions to the steering committee? The floor is open for responses to the questionnaire that was circulated.
Senator Corbin: This item is with respect to the reorganization of committees, is it?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Corbin: I noticed on your questionnaire that you had no reference at all, if I read it well, with respect to the number of committee rooms. I think that number is germane to the whole review process. In my experience, the members of a committee at one point were ready for a committee meeting on a certain day but we were told: We are sorry but there is no committee room available, or the staff was already occupied somewhere else.
I want you to include that point in the overall consideration of the process with which you are involved.
The Chair: That is a good point, Senator Corbin. One witness that we intend to call before this study is over is Heather Lank. She is in the process of gathering a lot of data and information. She will present to this committee on such things — not only rooms, but size of rooms and number of chairs available for senators to sit around a table. For instance, twice a year the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce invites the Governor of the Bank of Canada to come before the committee to give a report.
That meeting usually draws a lot of interest from honourable senators. A number of senators who are not regular members of the Banking Committee come to that meeting. There have been occasions when there have not been enough chairs for senators around the table because the room was too small. Ms. Lank will speak to committees, size of committees, whether or not television is available in committees and so on. That information will be laid before this honourable committee.
Senator Corbin: Will she speak to availability of staff as well? We are limited in terms of the staff.
The Chair: She will deal with the number of clerks and research staff from the Library.
Senator Corbin: Will she deal with stenographers, interpreters and so on?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: She will not deal with library staff?
The Chair: No, the representative from the Library of Parliament was here at the last meeting.
Senator McCoy: I have a question on the survey. To what use do you expect that survey to be put?
The Chair: One use is the one we are employing at present, namely, to allow this committee, which is mandated by the Senate to look into this subject, to find out what their fellow honourable senators have to say about the issues, to discuss the subject and to find out if there are areas in which senators want more evidence and information, and to find out if there are any commonalities. This use is one of the uses of the survey.
Senator McCoy: That is fair enough. Having read the results, it occurred to me that the survey is totally inconclusive. Some questions were somewhat confusing, so one cannot count the responses as being indicative. One is not sure which part of what question they said yes to. Some suggestions were probably useful. I am not sure we received all the suggestions. Perhaps we can ask whoever summarized it. In the comment section, it said that this or that suggestion was made. I am not sure that we heard all the suggestions that came back from the 31 senators who responded. Did we hear about all the suggestions that were made?
Michel Bédard, Analyst, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament: The summary that was prepared is obviously a summary. There were 31 respondents, and, to my knowledge, I included almost all the suggestions. I am not aware of a suggestion that I left out.
Senator McCoy: I know you left out a couple.
Mr. Bédard: We can double-check, of course.
The Chair: Can you tell us what comment was left out?
Senator McCoy: As you know, Senator Atkins and I collaborated on the survey, so two responses were identical. I did not see all the suggestions I made reflected in the summaries, but it was not only my suggestions or Senator Atkins' suggestions —
The Chair: What was missing —
Senator McCoy: — that sparked in me a curiosity. What if Senator Robichaud had said something that I would have found interesting and might have sparked discussion around the table? I think the commentary from the 31 senators will be richer than their yes and no answers, and I want the benefit of those suggestions. That is what I am trying to say. I want to see them all, not only a few.
Senator Andreychuk: I realized that I had not filled out the survey within the time limit, so I dashed it off. When I read the questionnaire, the questions made sense, but when I started to fill it out, I found myself answering a question that was three down because the questions were placed in different segments. For that reason, I do not know how complete my thoughts about committees are in the questionnaire. To that extent, I agree.
I thought that questionnaire was only your first brush at looking at what might be some commonality. It is not all that I think about committees. The survey dealt more with experiences gathered rather than where I wanted to go. It ended with the question: What do you think: Are you happy or dissatisfied?
The Chair: That is exactly what the question was. You stated it precisely.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to say a lot more about committees and how to structure them. The questionnaire was limiting in that it was past experience, which is part of our piece, so I do not take it as my only input.
The Chair: The intention of the committee is to hear from a lot more witnesses.
We have heard from the Library of Parliament, and we will hear from Heather Lank. Some honourable senators have commented in their surveys, and have approached members of the steering committee, to say that they want to appear before this committee.
Another suggestion was to invite all the chairs of all committees to appear before this committee and give their views on changes and ways to strengthen the Senate committee structure. That suggestion is a good idea. I do not want anyone to think that we have finished calling evidence in this study. That is not the case at all. We are only starting.
Senator Joyal: That point is a good one. I think it is good to invite chairs. Some might decline to appear, and others might give input based on their experience. The exercise would be worthwhile. Some chairs have chaired different committees, so they have wide experience. That is good suggestion.
Senator Fraser: I want to make an embarrassed apology.
Senator Corbin: You are forgiven.
Senator Fraser: I asked you for an extension on filling out my form. I was planning to complete it at home. The format in which I had the form at home was not user friendly and, by the time I was halfway through retyping, I became caught up in other things, so I have not filed it yet. I apologize, because this initiative is excellent and I thought it was important to consult senators.
The Chair: I hope that you will still file.
Senator Fraser: If you want me to, I will.
In the meantime, I can tell you quickly that, by and large, I agree with the majority as reported here, with a few exceptions.
I think the clerk and the analysts, for practicality, should report to the chair. If we are worried about giving the chair almighty powers, we can narrow the chair's powers. A lot of routine stuff will never happen if the whole steering committee must be involved in everything.
I do not think the office budgets of chairs and deputy chairs should be increased; I think the focus should be on committee budgets, not the budgets of the chair and deputy chair.
Finally, on the subject of the Committee of the Whole, except in true emergencies, legislation should never go to Committee of the Whole, but I think Committee of the Whole can be used usefully on a routine basis for the study of regional measures. My suggestion is that every Monday evening, we have a Committee of the Whole on one of Canada's regions, with no votes and no motions; only fact-finding. Particularly if this session were televised, that would be a good way for us to fulfil the regional representation part of our mandate, which, collectively, we do not fulfil as well as some of the other things that we do.
The Chair: I am interested in your remarks, and I am particularly interested in why you do not want legislation to go before Committee of the Whole. For what reason do you not want that to happen?
Senator Fraser: It is for a number of reasons. I made a careful exception for true emergencies. For example, with respect to back-to-work legislation, we have all dealt with those things. In most cases, legislation deals with specific matters, and the people who are most expert in those matters tend to be on specific committees. The study will be better done, I think, by those committees. They can be asked to study the legislation on an accelerated basis.
The Chair: Those committee members can all be present in the Committee of the Whole.
Senator Fraser: They can, but the second problem with Committee of the Whole is that, by its nature, it is limited in time. We will not have an eight-hour Committee of the Whole, whereas eight hours of study can be completed in one day, if it is absolutely necessary. That time may be the absolute minimum needed for the study of a piece of legislation. That is my reasoning on that point.
The Chair: Are there other comments from other senators on the committee?
Senator Corbin: I wish to add a comment to Senator Fraser's point, which I consider to be valid. There is also the general public interest.
Members of the public generally have a right to ask to be heard at a committee. Indeed, a lot of the time — especially when the committees travel — announcements or ads are placed in papers and on the radio inviting the public to make submissions to the committee. The same applies here in Ottawa when we sit around the table. We should never do anything that bars the public from being heard, outside the traditional accountants, lawyers and so on from the various faculties. John and Janet Q. Public have the right to be heard by the committee. That right is problematic if we restrict the study of bills on the floor of the Senate, in my opinion.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, why do we not set a deadline to give those who have not yet handed in their questionnaires but who want to respond the chance to do so, and to ensure that everyone has that chance? We will resume our discussion of all of the suggestions we receive with those who wish to take part in committee.
The Chair: Perhaps next week?
Senator Robichaud: I would allow a little more time. We should not rush things. We have a chance to make recommendations that could really change the way committees operate. I think that we need to give this matter a lot of thought and give those who wish to make suggestions the time they need to really think about what they want to say.
[English]
The Chair: About 31 have already done so.
Senator Robichaud: I know, but 31 out of how many?
Senator Andreychuk: That is a good average.
The Chair: Yes, the rate is higher than the response to most other questionnaires in the Senate.
Senator Joyal: One point that was not covered in the questionnaire is with respect to the special legislative committee. To me, that tool is an efficient one. A special legislative committee can bring the focus and the participation of senators who can provide input based on their expertise, past experience and knowledge outside of the world of politics. That aspect of our work always proves to be valid, at least in my 11 years of experience in the chamber. Each time there has been a legislative committee, in my recollection, it produced a useful report.
I wonder if that aspect of committees work should be dropped from our radar screen because it was not covered in the questionnaire.
The Chair: I think it will come up in this context. When speaking with Heather Lank and the clerks in the administration, we have asked them to look into that matter and be prepared to report on it; namely, how many legislative committees have been struck, what they were about and so on. That information will come before this committee through other witnesses.
Senator Joyal: I think that information will be helpful. If we have an overview of how those committees work and what subjects they touch upon, it can be helpful for us in our reflection on those committees. That information can provide us with an instrument that is useful for our legislative review or our pre-legislative review.
For instance, with respect to the work that was completed on the anti-terrorism bill, the first preliminary study was prepared in a legislative committee, and we followed up on that study later. It is important to have the capacity to reflect upon those special committees and include them in our report. My personal experience was satisfactory with the kind of instrument that the Senate uses.
The Chair: We will hear more information on that subject.
Senator Duffy: Commenting on Senator Joyal's experience, the special committees had totally slipped my mind. When I think back over the years, those committees have been the most highly watched among the public, were paid the most attention and were the most highly respected. They performed great work and brought great credit to the institution.
Senator Joyal: I happened to know you at the time of the special committee, Senator Duffy.
Senator Andreychuk: If we are putting issues on the table, we should look into this whole issue of pre-studies, committee time and something we have created recently called ``post-study.''
Senator Robichaud: We need more time.
Senator Andreychuk: Seriously, we have this post-study where we are attempting to do due diligence, but the bill has already passed. I knew the arguments for and against with respect to pre-studies; I am not sure I know the arguments for and against post-studies. It takes away from all the other work and there is a question of balancing other legislation, private bills, studies, et cetera. Yet, it is only subject matter. It is not the same as a pre-study because with pre-studies, we shorten the time that we take when the bill comes to the Senate.
With respect to anti-terrorism, it was plus or minus because we studied the subject matter of the bill. When the bill came and we saw the wording, we were cut off because they thought we already had time to study the bill. I am not fond of pre-studies either, to tell you the truth. Post-studies create different types of problems for the management of committees.
Senator Joyal: In that same vein, in the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with regard to amending the court martial system, we were caught within the restraint of adopting the bill within 48 hours, but we had the perception that we were rushing a bill that had a lot of implications.
With the concurrence of the government of the day, we were able to come to an agreement and prepare the study we would have prepared if we had enough time. We produced a report, and then we asked for the government to react to that report. I have no doubt that the Minister of Defence will react to that report because it is a good report, and it is helpful towards improving the court martial system.
However, afterwards we prepared the report we would have prepared routinely within the normal constraints of time if we had not been rushed by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and the way the government interpreted the Supreme Court of Canada decision.
There are various instruments to answer time pressures. When we prepare the pre-study of a bill that is in the other place, we study it more or less at the same time that they undertake their regular study of the bill. When the bill comes to us, we have less time to adopt it because we are under a time constraint.
We can rewind the system and do what we did with the court martial bill. We passed the bill quickly, as the other place normally passes bills but, after that, we conducted the study that we normally do. However, we were not able to amend the bill; the bill was already passed.
We expect to catch up with amendments to the National Defence Act once the government has reacted to the 12 recommendations that we put forward. I think those instruments of the Senate allow it to perform its duty; namely, review legislation.
Sometimes we review it before the legislation comes; sometimes we review it after the legislation has been passed.
The Chair: Bill C-10 is an example.
Senator Joyal: Exactly.
The Chair: I want to ask a question of everyone here. One question on the questionnaire was size of committees. As you know, there are two large committees: this one, the Rules Committee, and the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Senator Andreychuk chairs a committee of nine. I would love to have the views of honourable senators about size of committees.
Senator Furey, do you need such a large committee for what you do? Can you accomplish the work of Internal Economy with a committee of nine? How do numbers relate to your workload?
Senator Furey: I think a larger number on a committee like Internal gives a broader base of assistance to the committee. I do not think the numbers should be reduced. The committee is different from many others in that it looks at the administration of the Senate. Fifteen has historically been a comfortable number and a good number to stay with.
Senator Joyal: You do not have problems with attendance?
Senator Furey: Attendance is not bad. Normally, it is fully attended. Occasionally, a member from one side or the other does not show up, but normally attendance is good.
The committee is broader based because it touches on the day-to-day aspects of senators' work. It is not a question, for example, of studying a particular piece of legislation that is of particular interest to one senator or another. The committee touches on the day-to-day work of the senator, not only with the administration but in each senator's office as well.
Senator Corbin: It helps to build a broader consensus.
Senator Furey: Absolutely.
The Chair: Senator Andreychuk, you chair one of the smaller committees. Can you tell us about numbers?
Senator Andreychuk: The points made about Internal are also true of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. We need the support of the chamber, and the more input we have, the better.
One thing that we must address is the issue that Senator Carstairs, again, put on the floor of the chamber, and that issue is substitution in committees. When we are trying to build a consensus in the committee and senators come to meetings only for replacement, sometimes that substitution helps and sometimes it does not. It may politicize the issue more than it should because there was consensus-building.
Where does it talk about leadership within our Senate structure? There are all kinds of other questions.
On the question of the smaller committee, it is difficult to run a smaller committee because we do not have as many points of view and we tend, then, to have people who are committed to the subject matter but we do not have a broad- based approach to the committee. More numbers give us more opinion.
Compound that situation by scheduling meetings for a small committee on Monday. If the Internal Economy Committee sat on Monday, their numbers would drop, never mind that it is the Internal Economy Committee. There are 800 reasons why members cannot make a committee meeting, including legitimate reasons of flight times, cancelled flights, and so on. If they take the 5 a.m. flight, Air Canada may not understand that they must be at the committee, and the flight is either cancelled or delayed.
If we are to have a smaller committee, that smaller committee should meet at the optimum time, not the worst time. We are heaping all kinds of negatives on that committee. It then receives a bad reputation. Senators do not want to sit on that committee because no one ever goes to that committee. No one ever goes to that committee because it is on a Monday.
The Chair: Is it implicit in what you are saying that all committees should sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and therefore we need to reduce the number of committees?
Senator Andreychuk: That is one option.
Senator McCoy: That is what I say.
Senator Andreychuk: That option does not apply to Internal or Rules because they are unique. However, all the other committees that are either thematic or subject-matter-driven or legislative-driven, should have equal access and be treated equally or else they should not be set up.
Senator Corbin: This question is on another aspect of the study. It is not a follow-up to Senator Andreychuk's points.
Will this committee review the rationale for ex-officio members of committees? I want to know where that practice and tradition comes from. The names of ex-officio members appear on every committee report. It is impressive to see their names on every report published by the Senate. We never see those people —
The Chair: It is the leadership.
Senator Corbin: — the upper crust, at any of the committees, however. Will you have a look at that issue?
The Chair: It is not something we had on our minds but that is a wonderful suggestion and we will look at it. Perhaps, we should write to our leadership and ask them for views on it. I do not think they necessarily have to appear before us, but we could have their views on it.
Senator Corbin: I have never seen any justification for the practice.
The Chair: That is a good point.
Honourable senators, we have to leave but first, I want to raise a small budget item, if I may. You have before you a draft budget for the employment of a summer student to assist the steering committee, under my direction, on the project of revising the Rules of the Senate of Canada this summer. Your steering committee intends to be occupied with this project over the summer months, and we require assistance in managing this particular file.
I want to employ an individual named in the budget. I am confident of her skills and ability to provide the steering committee with the assistance required in helping to bring together a report on the Rules of the Senate that we can submit to this committee later this fall. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, I am going to put on my hat as chair of the subcommittee that considers committee budgets. I must tell you that, in the past, we objected to using committee funds to pay people to work in a senator's office. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. If the committee puts forward this budget, it certainly does not mean that I support it. I will have to discuss it further with the members of the subcommittee, and it will have to be approved by the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: That is absolutely the case. I agree with Senator Robichaud that a number of years ago we said that committees do not pay for people assigned to chairs. If it is necessary, we can contract when we cannot obtain assistance from the library.
The Chair: That is for the steering committee, not necessarily for the chair.
Senator Andreychuk: It must be the committee. It may be directed by the steering committee, but we employ for the committee to assist. The prerequisite is, can we obtain this type of service from the library first. I hope that is the situation here, and you are telling me that we cannot obtain that service from the Library of Parliament.
Senator Fraser: I think probably it is a good idea to obtain all the help we can on this project. However, I have been impressed by the work the table has done. Given that we are not sitting during the summer, I expect that the table and that department will be able to devote a little more time and staff to the project, even more than they already have devoted. However, if it is the will of the committee to hire a summer student in addition, I think that student's job description and accountability should be to the steering committee rather than to the chair. This comment has nothing to do with you personally, chair; it is only part of the way these things work.
Alternatively, if you want to hire a summer student in your office, that is fine. As a committee chair, I have hired a student in the past from my budget, in my office, who worked on committee work for me. That is a different matter.
If this is someone who will hired from the budget of the committee, then that person should report to the committee, and the committee should decide where that person will physically work.
Senator McCoy: I take all these comments in good heart and I agree with them, in terms of committee work. However, it is impossible to vote on this matter because there is no indication of the statement of work, and so I have no idea whether the idea is a good one or a bad one in this instance. I tend to agree with the likelihood of it being necessary, but I have no idea. I have no information.
Senator Smith: I am sympathetic to helping out if there is a work plan. Can we take the liberty of asking Senator Furey, from Internal Economy, whether these matters normally go to Internal Economy, or whether there are precedents or procedure? Can he shed any light on the proper way to deal with this item?
Senator Furey: What Senator Robichaud said is accurate. The first step, if the application is approved by this committee, is to go to Senator Robichaud's subcommittee. Normally, it is passed or not passed and, as he has indicated, it would be turned down in its present form. I do not speak for the subcommittee, but it has been a long time since we have even seen an application come to the full committee in this form.
The Chair: To save time, I withdraw the application. If there is nothing else to come before the committee, this meeting stands adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)