Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence - December 3, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 3, 2013
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:44 a.m. for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good morning. I welcome everyone to the start of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I thank everyone for making it. I know it is very difficult today. Senator Smith actually sends his regrets. He is stuck at the downtown airport in Toronto in the fog. We have some others who are on their way and some who probably will not make it this morning. Senator Martin as well will be a few minutes late.
The meeting today is open to the public. We will have a discussion in relation to future business. Typically, in most committees, that goes in camera, but I will allow that to be a discussion within the committee. My perspective only is that it would be helpful if it is in camera from an open dialogue and people may not want that open discussion personally in public, but I don't have a concern either way, actually.
Today will be a discussion around future business, where we see ourselves going as a committee. As I said last meeting, I think there are some things that we need to look at sooner than later, but as well, I want to allow each of you a few moments to express where you see our work going. If that's okay, we will start. Pending the arrival of other people, I will start with Senator Cools.
Senator Cools: I wasn't expecting to be called first.
The Chair: But I know you have something to say, and it's important.
Senator Cools: Well, that's a different question. I'm just wondering, can we begin a meeting without a member of each party, without both parties represented?
The Chair: We have quorum now. Otherwise, one party could choose to ignore the meeting.
Senator Cools: I am aware of all of the problems that are posed, but I was always under the impression that we must have a member from both parties, both sides.
The Chair: The deputy leader from the Liberal Party has advised us to go ahead and start without her. She is on her way.
Senator Cools: I don't have anything in mind in particular and I was quite looking forward to the discussion. I was thinking that perhaps we have been operating in an extremely unfortunate environment that now has its own lexicon almost and its own name — the Senate scandal. As I have observed the events unfolding, it has become clear to me that many senators lack very basic knowledge of what I would call the workings of the houses, or some would call the workings of the Constitution. The great writers quite often call it the workings of the Constitution. In spite of all of this, as the committee embarks on a new session and with a new chairman and quite a volume of new members, I was thinking that we could try to address some of those issues and to study some of these questions.
I have in my own mind's eye some of those issues as well. I would prefer to hear from other senators first as to what they think the needs are, but it became very clear during the Senate debates on these suspension motions that few senators had any insight or knowledge as to the powers of the Senate to suspend senators, as to what the limits were, and as to what the source of those powers is. It's pointless to point to a Senate rule to say that it grants the power. Senate rules reflect powers granted by the British North America Act and such cannot exceed anything in the British North America Act. That was one issue that screamed loudly at me.
I'm proposing that we find a way to make our studies relevant to the problems facing this house and facing us rather than rules adopted primarily because one party or the government needs that rule for a particular reason. Many of our rule changes have followed that pattern. Somebody wants this rule for that particular reason, and then everything is moved in that direction. I don't think that we have sat down for a long time to look at the needs of the Senate or the needs of the public to be able to understand the depth and the enormity of the law that guides these questions.
I'm just going to throw this out to you, chairman: Because of your background and your experience in heading a ``law enforcement'' organization, I think we should also contemplate informal gatherings of senators where we step outside of committee formalities, whether in camera or not.
Some seem to believe that an in camera meeting is somehow not a true meeting because it's in camera. It is just as formal as any other meeting, but I think under your leadership, chairman, it would be good, and this is a suggestion more to you, where we could have — a lot of these sorts of activities used to go on years back, years ago, where we just have some informal meetings, maybe a lunch where everybody pays their own way. We could begin to talk about some of these questions and what we would like to see, without any of our thoughts or suggestions taking the form of a proposal, which we could keep for a more formal setting.
It becomes very clear even now in the current atmosphere in the Senate that we even know any more what the words ``independent audit'' mean. What is an independent audit? What makes it independent? What are the features that make anything independent, in actual fact? I'm not suggesting, again, that we study that, but I'm trying to show the lack of clarity on so many issues. Many senators often tell me, ``Well, the staff told me that.'' Well, the staff told you wrong, and the staff are frequently wrong. We are the senators, and these decisions should come from us. They should not simply be repetitions of what the staff told us.
The Chair: You see them as a more of an informational, educational piece for senators.
Senator Cools: Yes, and I think, chairman, these kinds of meetings do not go on very much anymore, but I can tell you, I've served on many committees where we employed such practice. Senators just gathered together. Sometimes if a committee is travelling, and remember I have not been allowed to serve on committees so I have not had any committee travel recently, the evening gatherings of members, as they would gather for dinner after a full day of 10 hours of committee hearings, we would find marvellous insights and ideas being exchanged in informal dinner structure. Perhaps, chairman, you could consider taking the lead, and senators could come. We could have a series of lunches, and people could come or not come, as they see fit, and have some truly informal discussions as to where we want to go.
You weren't here, Senator Fraser, when I said that I'm hoping that, in these discussions, we will propose some ideas for future committee study that actually touch on the needs of senators and the Senate at this current stage in its experience. The example I used was that during the debate on the recent suspension motions it became very clear that no senator was really clear as to where the power to suspend senators comes from. I am one who still holds the opinion that the Senate had no power to suspend those senators. The fact is, if you go through the debate, the debate had very little participation from senators.
The Chair: But today we're talking about —
Senator Cools: I'm just letting her know what I was saying. The same thing arises when the Senate decides or someone decides that we should have an independent audit. Just what makes an audit independent, and what are those independent characteristics that should exist? Anyway, I have some ideas.
The Chair: We'll come back.
Senator Cools: You can revisit that very shortly.
The Chair: Senator Fraser and Senator Furey, thank you very much. We are talking about future business and where we'd like to go and whether or not there are any cross-sections with some other committees. I know some of us have had dialogue around ethical codes or conduct codes. It's just pretty well an open dialogue right now as we try to mesh some of this together.
Senator Cools: I think we should stay on the purview of this committee. Developing an ethical code is not the business of this committee. The business of this committee is the law of Parliament and its usages can customs.
The Chair: Some people would agree with you and some people would not. My point is that some people believe it should be sitting with Senator Andreychuk. I think it's the ethics committee, in fact, but all I'm suggesting is that someone suggested we look at it. I'm not sure where I think it should sit. I think it needs to be looked at. Whether it is us or someone else, it is not something I have given a lot of thought to.
Senator Cools: We are very open. We're not taking any decisions but just talking and trying to form some ideas.
The Chair: I promised Senator Smith, who is stuck at the airport, that we'd try not to.
Senator Batters: I'm quite a new member to the Senate. It is not even a year since I was appointed, so I guess I would hope to bring to this committee a bit of fresh perspective and knowledge that I've gained over some of the jobs that I've had in my life. I think that this committee can be a really important instrument to improve the inner workings of the Senate, a crucial founding institute of Canada. The Rules Committee has some excellent ways that we can look at in tightening up some rules, if that needs to happen, improving ways that Canadians can become more acquainted with the Senate, and I think that we can accomplish quite a lot here. I look forward to doing that.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Unger: I'm fairly new to the Senate as well and brand new to this committee, so I have a lot to learn from my very experienced colleagues, but I do know the difference between right and wrong. I think that in this committee a code of conduct, something that spells out things clearly, needs to be put in place to replace the former honour code, because it seems to me that there is or has been a breakdown. Perhaps we can look at that and determine concrete points that we could add to our rules and, of course, a parliamentary business definition of that.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator McIntyre: I'm also new to the Senate, having been appointed in September of last year. I know that most of you have more knowledge of the rules and procedure than I do, and I'm prepared to learn. I think Senator Cools raised an interesting point a while ago, an interesting issue, and that has to do with a lot of things, whether it's motions and so on. For example, I was quite enthused about the debate surrounding the suspension of the three senators. It was a heated debate. Of course, as Senator Cowan has said, we had to search our minds, our hearts and our consciences and, in the end, make a decision.
One of the things that I found interesting in that debate was whether or not the Senate had the power to suspend, and I respect Senator Cools' opinion saying we had no power to suspend. On the other hand, as you know, others were saying we had the power to suspend and that power came from the constitutional act and, as I recall, section 4 of the parliamentary act. We also reviewed the civil fault, the criminal fault, and finally the discretionary power to review.
I thought that was a very interesting debate. I did not speak during the debates, but I learned a lot from all of you. I would hope that we continue having those discussions so that senators can learn more about the power of the Senate.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senator.
Senator Fraser: On the matter of the code of conduct, I have heard a number of people calling for a code of conduct, perhaps most memorably, Senator Plett in that debate. I would agree with Senator McIntyre — it was an extraordinary debate. As somebody said, it was actually a debate. It wasn't just a collection of potted speeches. People were taking into account each other's arguments and responding to them. I thought it was a tremendous experience in that way.
With regard to a code of conduct, I'm not sure what it is we would be talking about. Various examples that have been given are already covered in various elements of our rules. The conflict of interest code has quite a chunk of instructions, rules, about how senators are supposed to comport themselves. The SARs have other rules, definitions of various sorts. So before we start to decide that we are going to have a code of conduct, I would like us to define what a code of conduct would be. I'm really a little confused about all this.
I know there is an impression abroad, which Senator Unger echoed, that until recently we operated on a pure honour system and nobody ever had to check anything. I think that is also a misapprehension. My experience in the Senate has been that it is no more an honour system than any other system of expenses. If you produce a receipt, normally that has been taken as prima facie evidence that you spent the money and that you spent it for the purpose that you say you spent it for.
If you don't do that — maybe Senator Furey is going to correct me here — then you are telling a lie. There's an assumption, widely spread in this society, that you don't lie, and that's proven otherwise.
However, there's one area that I probably bored people to tears with in the debate, but we really do need to examine it, whether it is this committee, the Internal Economy Committee — you could see an argument either way, although I think I would side for this committee: We need to establish a framework for penalties that we may find ourselves wishing to impose. The biggest difficulty in the debate about the suspensions was that we had no precedents, no framework with which to operate.
It is my understanding that many other legislative bodies have established at least a range of penalties, which go all the way from reprimands through fines, through short-term suspensions. I understand Senator Cools' argument about whether we have a right to suspend, but we have operated for at least 10 or 12 years on the assumption that we do have the right to suspend in certain circumstances.
We didn't have any framework with which to approach the case of the three senators that we were discussing in the suspension debate, and I think it could be a very useful contribution for us to examine what such a framework might be. I'm not saying that we should say in a specific case, ``You claimed $10,000 more than you were entitled to, so the penalty will be X,'' because you never know what cases are going to arise.
In fact, cases don't arise that often here, which is a good thing. But when they do, we should have at least some concept of the range of possibilities open to us. That would be my suggestion for at least an initial project, chair.
The Chair: It is interesting. I don't know if anyone here has read the House of Lords code of conduct. I'm sure, Senator Fraser, you have, but I think some of the things you talk about are more clear there than we have. In particular, every code of conduct must have an accountability section, which some would argue is the disciplinary section, which I think is our biggest challenge. As much as I enjoyed the debate, I thought it was the most fulsome debate I have seen since I have been in the Senate. I believe it was based on fairness, with a smattering of politics, but it is reality. It was based on fairness from most perspectives.
As well, it clearly identified to a lot of us that when it came to the suspension, we were making this up as we went along. I don't know that that's helpful. I think it is helpful if we are clear, as Canadians would expect.
Senator Furey: I did not participate in the debate, mainly because I was deputy chair of the committee that had already presented their reports, and I stated that in the chamber.
One thing that did bother me with the whole procedure was what it does to our independence, and our independence is perhaps the most important thing that we have as sitting senators. What I mean is that if a future government with a majority in the chamber finds that a particular senator is pesky, all they need to do now is allege and then suspend the rules and throw that senator out.
Senator Cools: That's right.
Senator Furey: That really, to me, strikes at the heart of what is most important to us as sitting senators: our independence. I think that's something we have to look at.
We had rules in place for just the type of circumstances that those three senators found themselves in. It required, once a charge was laid, that they be suspended from their legislative duties, and if a conviction was found, then —
Senator Cools: No, a leave of absence.
Senator Furey: Sorry, you're right, Senator Cools. They were given a leave of absence from their legislative duties and permitted to carry on their representative duties.
Senator Cools: Right.
Senator Furey: If there is a conviction on an indictable matter, then the Senate could move to have them evicted if they did not resign.
That now all is gone by the wayside. All we need to do now is follow the last precedent, which is merely suspend all the rules —
Senator Cools: That's right.
Senator Furey: — make an accusation, and then throw somebody out of the chamber. That, to me, is untenable when we look at what it is we're supposed to cherish the most in this role that we play for Canadians, and that is our independence.
The Chair: And for future —
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: One moment.
In future business, Senator Furey, do you see this as something this committee should look at?
Senator Furey: Absolutely.
The Chair: I understand Senator Cools doesn't believe we should be looking at this necessarily.
Senator Cools: I didn't say that. I said we should be looking at these issues.
The Chair: I mean a code of conduct.
Senator Cools: I was not proposing that we reopen that debate.
The Chair: Neither am I, by the way.
Senator Cools: But we study it because that is what Senator Furey said. That was the one point that was never raised, and since he has raised it, and I raised it when I spoke — several times. I spoke several times in the debate.
When one begins any motion by dispensing with every single Senate rule, the choice is infinite as to what you do and when you to do it, since there are no rules.
As I said at the outset, those motions began by dispensing with every single rule of the Senate. Therefore, if you begin with no rules, what's the limit as to what you can do in the future? I don't think many senators noted that fact.
I'm not even convinced that to do that is even in order, but that's a different —
The Chair: That is a different discussion.
Senator Cools: What we have to deal with here are the questions that that debate has left unanswered in our minds. We should like to get some of those questions answered.
The Chair: I think the discussion we're having right now is around clarity. I don't disagree with that.
Senator Cools: I said I didn't want to reopen the suspension motions.
The Chair: Nor do I, but a good handbook, the Handbook on Parliamentary Ethics and Conduct: A Guide for Parliamentarians, has that dialogue as well. The clarity around the institution was the foundation of such a code, right, clarity around the institution. I don't disagree —
Senator Cools: The real problem we have to address is how, all of a sudden, we have no clarity on so many questions, though. Senators spend many spend hours creating codes of conduct and rules and more rules.
The Chair: So we're clear, no rule book will ever be 100 per cent clear. Otherwise, we would not need a Supreme Court of Canada.
Senator Cools: When I came here, the Senate rule book was this size and every senator knew the principles that governed all of those rules. That is the day of the past. No one knows these principles anymore, and there's no leadership that is reinforcing them or upholding them or even clarifying them. Contemporary leadership does not seem to believe that it has a duty to constantly instruct its members in these systems. It is a huge problem.
So what we're dealing with is not an absence of rules. We are overburdened with rules as it is. What we're dealing with right now is a lack of clarity as to who has what power to do what and when in these houses, and what are the sources and origins of those powers and whether or not the origins of those powers are in those individuals or in the law.
The Chair: So such a code might actually offer clarity.
Senator Furey, were you finished? I apologize.
Senator Furey: I think it is definitely something we as a committee should be looking at.
The Chair: What other areas do you see as future business?
Senator Furey: I would like us to look at this whole idea of parliamentary immunity.
The Chair: Parliamentary privilege?
Senator Furey: Yes. We brought that up with the last committee, and we were on the verge of trying to do something about it. There seems to be a very significant, changing trend with respect to Parliamentary privilege, and I think we should be looking at what is happening in other jurisdictions and get out in front of it.
The Chair: Before you arrived, we had raised the discussion quickly about parliamentary privilege: shield or sword. It was that kind of discussion. I think it would be helpful as well at some point that we have that discussion. I agree with you that other jurisdictions have moved the posts further than we have. In fact, I don't think we've moved them at all. Thank you very much.
Senator Cools: Just to be clear, which jurisdictions are you speaking about?
Senator Furey: New Zealand, Australia.
The Chair: New Zealand is the one I was —
Senator Cools: New Zealand does lots of questionable things all the time.
The Chair: Doesn't mean they're wrong, though.
Senator Cools: I didn't say that.
The Chair: It doesn't mean they're wrong.
Senator Cools: I didn't say that they were wrong. I just said that New Zealand is known as a jurisdiction for some of its questionable practices.
The Chair: I don't think most would disagree that parliamentary privilege is important to protect, but it is not meant, from my perspective, to be an offensive —
Senator Cools: But I don't think anybody here would even claim that, chairman.
The Chair: No, no, but I think we have all seen it.
Senator Cools: I don't think that there's anybody here who would claim that parliamentary privileges should be abused or violated or misused, but there are many senators here who could claim that their independence has been encroached upon and that encroaching on senators' independence has become common practice in this Senate. I have not been permitted to serve on committees because somebody has decided that. On what grounds, for example?
Senator McIntyre: Personally, I like Senator Fraser's idea of setting up a framework for penalties to be imposed. I think that is very important, because when you come to think of it, it all boils down to behaviour. Behaviour could take place in the form of a civil fault, a criminal fault or a disciplinary power. When you get to discipline, what are you looking at? It appeared to me that during the debates surrounding the suspension of the three senators, all we were looking for is the suspension itself. We could have looked at a reprimand and fines and so on, so I like Senator Fraser's idea of having a discussion around that issue.
The Chair: Very good.
Senator, sorry, I didn't see you there.
Senator Cools: That's because she's not visible enough.
Senator Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was listening because I did arrive a little bit late. My apologies.
I do agree with my colleagues around the table in terms of an opportunity to really educate those that will be following these proceedings and what we do with the rules.
For those who did follow our debates in the chamber, we ought to bring attention to what we have gone through and provide some of that clarity. We have rules and I respect them all the more in having been put into the position as a deputy leader. I have had the opportunity to work with the clerk's office and to really study the rules to the point where we have to see how our proceedings must stay within those rules, yet we did exercise flexibility and we were able to demonstrate what we can do within those rules. In the chamber, I thought we did a very difficult but important job on behalf of Canadians. I have greater respect for everyone that was involved in the entire process.
I think there is a great opportunity here, Mr. Chair and colleagues, in looking at what we still need to clarify and tighten and improve. Strengthening what we have is the opportunity here.
This is the Senate of Canada, and I think we ought to look at best practices, whether it is to look at what exists in the House of Lords or in other jurisdictions. That would be a very interesting exercise. I'm sure in that process we will also find what we're doing better or effectively when compared to other jurisdictions. This is a good opportunity, and I look forward to what we will do as a committee to further educate, clarify and improve what we already do.
Senator Cools: Are we going to take decisions today? Many of the committee members are not here.
The Chair: I was going to suggest that we ask the library analyst to provide material to us, for those who haven't reviewed the House of Lords as well as the handbook and any other information, but I will wait until everyone else has completed.
Senator Fraser: I was going to raise another topic, if you want to conclude your discussion on this matter.
The Chair: If everyone is in agreement, I will ask that that information be shared among all of us. It may not always be in bilingual format. I don't know if I'm limited to sharing information. If it comes from the House of Lords, of course, it will probably not be in French. Would we still like to share it?
Charles Robert, Clerk of the Committee: They have access to it themselves, if they choose to go that route, but whatever Sebastian, as an analyst, would write would have to be distributed in bilingual form.
Senator Cools: On information, anything that you can distribute to senators that relieves them of having to go looking for it. I spend my days looking for information endlessly.
Any time, Sebastian, you can help, I welcome it.
The Chair: The analyst said he can provide a summary in both official languages, and possibly a link if people would like to go further to review the material, if that's good.
Does the U.S. have a code of conduct for their Senate as well? I don't know that I have seen that.
Senator Cools: I would make the point again that the problems that we had here were not absences of codes of conduct or absences of those kinds.
The Chair: However, if we had a framework, as Senator Fraser has raised, it would have assisted us in the concerns that you raise.
Senator Cools: I agree with her suggestion, and I understand why she's suggesting it. I think it is very helpful. I'm trying to say these events here have no bearings on absence or lack of well-defined ethical codes in this place. Those codes are very well defined here.
The Chair: Senator Fraser, you wanted to move on to the next potential topic.
Senator Fraser: Yes, but a cautionary word just before I do that, which is that we're all bubbling away, fermenting with ideas all over the place. I think it will be quite important for you, chair, to be sure that we're not duplicating efforts unnecessarily. In my view, this committee is the appropriate place to do what we have been talking about, but who knows.
The Chair: Before you arrived, I had said I would be speaking to Senator Andreychuk to see if this might be partially theirs. I will have a dialogue with her as well.
Senator Cools: Also, we must be mindful that when we talk about Senate rules and privileges, we're talking about rules that guide proceedings in Parliament. We're talking about the rules that govern how we debate and what we do.
There is a place where ethics are always involved. Ethics are involved in every single debate, but in terms of the ken of this committee, it is supposed to be about these statements that govern how we debate and do business on the floor. We should stay within that mandate.
Senator Fraser: There is another, even more thorny, horrible subject that is the subject of public debate, and that is the definition for constitutional purposes — not for expenses, but for constitutional purposes — of residency. I had actually never thought that the Constitution was unclear. It has become apparent that my understanding is not necessarily universal, and I can't think of anybody that is going to examine this other than this committee.
I would go for the framework first that we have been talking about, but further down the line, colleagues, I really believe we're going to have to tackle this. We're going to have to tackle the question of constitutional residency. What does it mean ``to be resident in''?
Senator Cools: We should address the question why is it in 150 years of Canada's existence — you know, members and senators came from all over the country to be in Ottawa as public men and public women for public business — why is it that suddenly, whereas no one in the past 150 years had any problems understanding residency, and when R.B. Bennett would stay in the Château Laurier for months at a time —
Senator Fraser: R. B. Bennett was not a senator.
Senator Cools: I never said he was a senator.
The Chair: There are different rules for parliamentary —
Senator Cools: No, I'm saying to you — the point that I'm making — well, let's name any of the senators that stayed there. R. B. Bennett was very well known for staying at the Château Laurier hotel. That's why I chose his name. I'm saying to you that no doubts have ever risen about residency, because at no time, ever, did anybody assume that any time spent in Ottawa by any public person could possibly make them a resident of Ottawa.
These problems partially arose because somebody devised a system whereby senators had to make a declaration and a choice of primary residence versus secondary residence. I would submit to you that that definition, by itself, invited a host of problems. At the time all this was created, a long time ago, I said that it would. I questioned it. This is a long time ago.
Rules or no rules, majorities here, whichever government is in power, act the same way every time. Once they decide what they want, they stop listening and they just run it through.
We created — not we — the Senate created that monster, you know. It was created, and I think that's the sin that happened. That's the error that happened, the notion of residence in Ottawa.
It was always well known. Until then, the term ``primary and secondary residence'' was never known. Before that, colleagues, there was a system of compensation for senators and members that was equal. Every senator got paid the same amount of money. It was a very modest amount of money, but that was the rule. They got it. It didn't really matter. And that was abandoned. That was totally abandoned, and there are many of us at the time who argued that that was the fairest and probably the best, the soundest thing we would ever find.
The Chair: If I may, Senator Cools.
Senator Cools: What I'm trying to say to you is the problem of residency has only arisen because every few months somebody sends a document around to you, and you have to declare your primary and your secondary residence.
Well, who is counting where you sleep?
The Chair: I think, Senator Cools, what Senator Fraser is referring to is constitutional purposes represent the province or territory that you are identifying, not whether or not you could or should not claim expenses.
Is that correct, Senator Fraser?
Senator Cools: I agree, but I'm saying there are no more or no more less constitutional reasons or constitutional meanings of the word ``residency'' now than before. These doubts have arisen in the context, I will be quite frank, of a poorly designed policy, and, because it is a policy that did not anticipate that some would deviate from it, that is what we have, a flawed policy.
I want to say I have more than a passing interest in this because I now find myself in this place, in the Senate, where I'm a senator from Toronto who happens to live in Ottawa, and the system just simply cannot accommodate me whatsoever. It is because I only have one residence.
And we are going to cross that one sooner or later. That is unfair, what has been going on.
The Chair: If you look at the qualifications of senator and —
Senator Cools: I know the qualifications very well.
The Chair: I know you do. Maybe the rest of us need to read it, senator, if you don't mind.
Senator Cools: Oh, okay.
The Chair: If you walk to the fifth subparagraph: ``He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed'' or she. I think that's what we have to have a dialogue around, defining the terminology ``resident.''
Senator Fraser: Even further down, there are references to disqualification on grounds of residency, which suggests that in the minds of the framers, at any rate, it was a fairly serious business.
The Chair: Yes.
I think it is helpful as well. I think that would be very good future business for us. It would add — back to the word ``clarity'' — clarity for many people today.
Senator Cools: I think we should study the question and, having studied the question, then decide what our conclusions are, rather than to approach our study with a complete set of conclusions in our minds. I will have a lot to say about that because constitutions are designed to resist change. Our Constitution was designed by some very brilliant men, and it has lasted for 150 years. I'm watching to see how long these current proposals are going to last. Because the way in which we have been making rules in the Senate for the past few years is that a new set of rules, a new policy is announced, and within a few years it is a failure.
I'm done.
The Chair: That's fine. Thank you very much.
Senator Cools: I'm good.
The Chair: Senator Fraser, before you came, Senator Unger brought up the definition of parliamentary business, and I know it has certainly been a discussion.
Senator Cools: That's not a rules committee matter, either.
The Chair: I think that's something we will discuss though, Senator Cools, if that's all right.
Senator Cools: Absolutely.
The Chair: The definition of parliamentary business and whether or not we should consider looking at the definition of parliamentary business. I have been here two years. The first year I don't recall hearing it very much, but in the last eight months I certainly have.
Senator Fraser: There are definitions in the SARs, and I don't have them in front of me. Public business —
The Chair: I will in a second.
Senator Fraser: — which are actually quite broad, all encompassing, and since SARs comes out of Internal Economy —
Senator Cools: That's right.
Senator Fraser: — the matter of what is and is not parliamentary business is largely raised in connection with do you or do you not get to charge expenses if you are on public business. That might be for them, but it probably would be helpful to have a cheat sheet with all these different things set out for the committee to use as reference.
Chair, when I was giving speeches to people, I used to say that there are 105 Senate seats and 105 ways to be a good senator because one of the elements of our independence is that we don't have to dance to the orders of whoever is giving orders this morning. We can choose the areas we're going to concentrate on and how we're going to do that, and I think it has been one of the great elements of the Senate.
I'm not actually in favour of a very narrow definition, but I take the point that it would be helpful for everybody to know, to have the same understanding of what we're talking about.
The Chair: Thank you. I wasn't suggesting that we should do it. I was suggesting someone raised it and I thought we should at least have the dialogue.
Senator Cools: What Senator Fraser is raising is extremely important. What she is addressing is the absence of knowledge of the workings of Parliament. That is a larger problem than ethical problems.
I have a problem with every time something bad happens in the Senate, people rush off to create a brand new set of policies, run them through and pass them in very totalitarian ways. I've sat through a lot of these now. They jam them through the Senate very quickly because they must appear to the public, or whomever, that the Senate is exercising due diligence. It's a bad way to do business. I'm in support of examining the issues here. That is not the same as trying to create a totally new creature or new animal before we know what the characteristics are that we need.
The Chair: To be fair, senator, Senator Fraser said this might be about sharing information. It might not be about making anything or building anything new. We have heard in the last six months a number of people suggest what they thought, correctly or incorrectly, was parliamentary business, and we've heard other people argue that it isn't parliamentary business, both formally and informally, from auditors and others.
Senator Cools: I have been here for a few years, and some here wish to define parliamentary business so narrowly that most senators would not be able to do the fantastic work that they've done.
The Chair: There are a number of us who would actually like to have a better understanding of what parliamentary business is, myself included.
Senator Cools: Of course, and I think that is wonderful and extremely useful and relevant.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Since I am new on this committee — I am replacing our colleague Pierre Claude Nolin — I apologize if I am going back to something you have already addressed.
Personally, I am in favour of fine-tuning the definition of the code of conduct. I think it has to be changed and you are going to have to look into it. I also think the independence of the Senate is very important.
I would also like you to clarify the whole residence issue, since that is how the problems started. My recommendation therefore is to fine-tune it all if possible. Make our place of residence clear. I cannot say anything else because I have not looked into this before.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Thank you as well for replacing Senator Nolin. I know he got tied up. I do appreciate you being here today. If I missed you earlier putting your hand up, I apologize.
I think our goal today was to actually have a fulsome dialogue around future business that would allow us to grow the work we do and hopefully enhance, for the public at least, the work that has already been done for the most part in the Senate.
One other thing, and I was hoping Senator Smith would be here: There were four reports that worked their way through this committee, I believe, last year that did not find their way to completion in the Senate. I will be asking that the four reports be shared with each of you and that we revisit each one. There may be changes, alterations and fine- tuning. Senator Cools has spoken to one of the reports, I think, in the past. So there is an opportunity to actually walk our way back through the reports.
Senator Cools: We don't want those approved today.
The Chair: No. My point was everyone will get a copy of those four reports so that we can revisit them back in this room again and hopefully bring them to a conclusion in this sitting.
Senator Cools: I am also aware of every session we have whereby essentially the members want to defeat the effects of prorogation and fast-forward certain things. I want to take a good look at those reports and read them very well.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is there any other discussion or suggestions today? If not, I will adjourn the meeting. We will meet again next Tuesday morning, not tomorrow night, same time, same place, at 9:30.
(The committee adjourned.)