Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 2 - Evidence - May 27, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 27, 2014
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day, at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), for consideration of amendments to the Rules of the Senate and a draft report.
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I thank everyone for being here today. After a break week, it's not always easy to get here. I appreciate it.
Our discussion today, unless people have something to add to the agenda, will focus on consideration, pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), of amendments to the Rules of the Senate in relation specifically to the subcommittee chaired by Senator Nolin. I will let him walk quickly through the rule change being proposed, then we will go to further discussion and, if necessary, debate.
Senator Nolin: As you will recall, we had a discussion at our last meeting. Some requested more time to reflect on the subject, and we gladly agreed. The intent is still the same, to limit debate on items that are not government business.
Last week you received a proposed report. This morning we are suggesting another amendment to that proposed report that would defer the vote. If a standing vote is requested on that motion, after the voice vote is put, we would defer it to the next sitting. If it's a Friday, the government would wish it deferred to another sitting day.
I don't know if you have any questions since our last meeting.
Senator Furey: I have a couple of questions. First, I want to apologize for not being at the last meeting. I've have a chance to review the documentation and the debate that took place. One question came to mind, Senator Nolin. I'm not saying that I'm against this by any means as I like to see good flow in the chamber, but you have always been a champion of the Senate as a chamber of debate. Surely you must have some concerns as we have closure on government bills and now we're bringing in a form of closure on private members' bills. Do you have some concerns about that?
Senator Nolin: Of course. When we first had the discussion on that, the chair and I, my first reaction was exactly the one you are having now; but we must face reality. We have bills and items on the Order Paper for years. We need to proceed. It's unfair for those promoting items that we just push them to future debate.
There are conditions to moving time limitation for non-government items. The item would have been considered at least 15 times plus three hours of debate. At the last meeting we looked at, and I don't know if we still have copies, the information gathered by staff on the last session, when only one bill was in that category: Bill C-377. We would keep 15 times plus three hours' debate. I'm satisfied that we are protecting the idea of having a full and thorough debate. As a matter of fact, Senator Jaffer was probably thinking of reducing the three hours.
Senator Furey: I don't like the idea that things are deliberately drawn out for no good reason, but I'm also concerned that we are giving the majority another tool to basically beat up the minority. I have some concerns over that. We are not always going to have reasonable people making the decisions. If we could say those decisions would always be made by reasonable people, then of course there would be no problem.
My other concern, Senator Nolin, is a procedural one. The subcommittee was charged basically with reviewing the idea of bringing cameras into the chamber. Now, we are into a holus-bolus change of rules. How did we make that jump?
Senator Nolin: Honestly, I think it's the flow of work in the chamber. The intent is to have a better media position to put forward. Standing three quarters of our Order Paper every sitting was one concern raised by the committee. I, too, was a bit concerned about the stretch of the mandate, but I decided to look.
Senator Furey: Of course, the committee is its own master, but my view would have been to stick to the mandate with a recommendation that the committee look at changing certain rules to make that flow you were concerned about. Anyway, it is what it is. Thank you.
Senator Nolin: The idea of ganging up on the minority is already there. A group can basically say, that's it, close the debate on an item, and vote on it. We are just putting some kind of order in a process. In terms of who can introduce such a motion, we're organizing how to limit that debate instead of having it just waiting for someone to decide to gang up on the minority.
Senator Furey: That's a clever way to look at it.
The Chair: If I may say, it is at each stage; so it gives us two opportunities at 15 plus three hours. As for reasonable people, I think we're moving forward not backward.
Senator Fraser: I am not one of those who has been disturbed by something that seems to bother many people, which is, "stand, stand, stand." I really like the idea that every item is called because that means every senator has the opportunity to speak when he or she wishes. If you're worried about, "stand, stand, stand," it seems there would be other mechanisms to attack that problem. For example, have the Speaker call headings on the Order Paper rather than each individual item, which would eliminate many "stand, stands."
I'm not sure how the problem of, "stand, stand, stand" morphed into the question of, to use your words, Senator Nolin, "limiting debate on non-government items." I don't understand where the virtue lies in limiting debate. I understand that for government business; and we have in our rules a sharp distinction between government business and other business. The government is the government, and it has the right, after debate and reflection, to get its business through the house; but this is other stuff. This is "Other Business," non-government business. Can you please explain to me why it seems appropriate to limit debate?
Senator Nolin: Let me first answer the question about "stand, stand, stand." Honestly, it is the understanding I personally have of why the subcommittee on broadcasting has been asked to look into the time limitation for non- government business. Is that a perfect answer? No. I was much more concerned by limiting non-government business. When you look at the various conditions that we are proposing, we are trying not to limit the debate. We're trying to have in our Rules a structure that would give everybody — first, the sponsor; also the critic — a chance to see the light at the end of the tunnel on a specific item. That was the concern.
For me the idea of limiting debate, I think whoever wants to speak can speak, but at least we will have a process now. It's probably not perfect, but we will work on it. Time will tell. Dynamics will develop, but at least we will have a tool for the critic and for the sponsor to put some organization and structure around the movement of business which is not government business.
Senator Fraser: Did you have at your disposal, and if so would it be possible for the committee to see, any kind of survey or research on how other second chambers handle these matters?
Senator Nolin: Yes, we have. At our first meeting of the subcommittee, we looked at what was happening in the U.K. I was personally astonished to see how limited the time is for debate. I think I have it somewhere, but I can show it to you. It is minutes, and it's not even comparable to what we have and are proposing. It's very limited.
Senator Fraser: Did you look at Australia, France, the United States?
Senator Nolin: In the House of Lords in terms of hours, it means one hour. No, we don't have Australia. I'm trying to limit the government business out of that table here, but I have a copy. Maybe you want to have a look at it. Definitely we've looked at that.
Senator Fraser: Perhaps the committee could have that, chair.
Senator Nolin: When you look at that schedule, you will see that there is also "Government Business" in the House of Lords included in that report.
Senator Fraser: I read the transcript of the last meeting and you said it again today; namely, that there was only one bill in the last session of Parliament that could have been captured by this rule. When I was reading the report, I wondered whether you had considered the effect on behaviour that the adoption of such a rule would have. This is my last question, Senator Cools — for now, anyway.
The Chair: Carry on, please.
Senator Nolin: That's what I referred to as the dynamic that will emerge out of this.
Senator Fraser: It seems to me that if we adopt this rule what will happen is that the majority, in particular, since they are the ones who have the vote at the end, whoever the majority happens to be, will then make it its business to fill up three hours of debate and impose a vote. It strikes me as having the potential to become a tool whereby the majority is even freer to impose its will than it has historically been. We already have the previous question; we can already have votes on whether or not debates should be adjourned. I still don't quite understand why you thought this was necessary.
Senator Nolin: Let's look at 377 and using the majority. Let's take only that example. I think it's a perfect example.
The government majority, as you recall, was not unanimous.
Senator Fraser: I do recall.
Senator Nolin: You remember that. Even after 387 minutes of debate, the government lost its bid on that bill. That was not supposed to be a government bill, by the way.
Senator Fraser: It was strongly supported by the government.
Senator Nolin: It was not a government bill and they lost. I think that's evidence that a good bill can win and a bad bill can fail.
Senator Fraser: Or a bad bill can win and a good bill can fail.
Senator Nolin: And then we have the courts.
Senator Joyal: Not right away; not always.
Senator Fraser: I said that was my last question at least for this round, chair.
Senator Runciman: I'm a sub on this committee and I have not been privy to all of the conversations surrounding this subject, but it strikes me that this is more than generous and still leaves the adjournment process open to significant abuse.
I had one bill that I sponsored last year that the critic on the other side kept adjourning, or someone on his behalf kept adjourning, for months and months and months. It was a relatively simple bill that was supported by virtually everyone, but, for whatever reason, this individual decided that he didn't want to deal with it at that point in time. I think that that's somewhat problematic. Senator Fraser talks about her attraction to every item being called. I know one of the things the Senate as a body is looking at, and I think all of us are looking at it, are options about making the processes in this place more understandable to the public at large. If we ever get to broadcast electronically, I think this is one of those areas that must be one of the most confusing elements of the Senate processes, namely calling everything. I know this is not going to be attractive to some of the senior hands around this place, but I would prefer to see private members' business dealt with in a more efficient process in place where there was perhaps an afternoon set aside every week and this is scheduled so that we can have a debate and resolve these issues.
I'm in a position now where I'm sponsor of legislation and I'm adjourning it — and we've seen this before; it can happen on both sides of the house — because no one wants to deal with a piece of legislation at a certain time. It does cause a great deal of confusion. I think Senator Nolin and the subcommittee has been very generous here. From my perspective, and from spending a lot of time in the Ontario legislature, namely 29 years, I find this to be the most inefficient way to deal with private members' legislation and certainly an element that would cause significant confusion for the public if we ever attempted to televise our proceedings.
The Chair: Remember that three hours is a minimum, not a maximum. It doesn't stop debate at three hours; it means somebody could call for a vote.
Senator Cools: I would like to return to first principles. The principles are that the rules are merely to facilitate maximum debate and are there to support members in maximum debate. I am concerned that yet again there is a rule change whose sole purpose is to limit debate or to limit members.
It is only recently that the government acquired and took over such control of the Senate in respect of "government business." Prior to 1991, government business proceeded by virtue of the skill and talents of members; but it did not dominate in the way it does now. We are now moving to yet another proposition to limit debate because for some reason or other some individuals, who are unknown to us and unnamed, find something undesirable.
I would like to remind senators that traditionally proposed rules and recommendations in respect of rule changes originated in the Senate by a motion on a debate in the Senate. Yes, I know that right now you are relying on the rule — I've forgotten the number — which says that on its own initiative, this committee may bring forth proposals for rule changes. I would submit to you that these proposals for rule changes have been coming forth to the subcommittee that should properly be canvassed in the Senate first. The subsection in the rules that permits these proposals is not an absolute and is intended for issues on which there would be very little disagreement or little concern. It is not intended for major concerns.
Coming to the issue, I do not understand why the proposal is before us. I do not understand why some of us deem it necessary. As it is, debates in the Senate are pretty sparse, in my view. The bill in question that you spoke about, Senator Nolin, is undoubtedly a government bill. It's not the first time the government has brought bills forward as private members' bills. I read carefully the news media for a few days following those events. The commentary and comments from persons in the Prime Minister's Office were heavy and hard about the fact that the Senate had no business doing what it did with Bill C-377. Undoubtedly, it was a government bill. We should ask the question. We should have a debate. Why does the government —
The Chair: Senator —
Senator Cools: We are on the subject matter.
The Chair: I don't know if we want to debate whether 377 was a government bill.
Senator Cools: We're not debating that. I do have the floor.
The Chair: I agree you have the floor, senator. Please continue.
Senator Cools: I would like not to be instructed in what I can say. Just remember that. I am a free person here.
The Chair: You are.
Senator Cools: Thank you. As I was saying, there is absolutely no reason for this. Many government bills are moving forward with little or no debate. For example, last year when the government moved the motion to invite the Auditor General in, not a single member of the government rose to speak to the motion — not one. As for the sponsor of the bill, even her remarks were pretty sparse. This place is not teeming with debate. Many government bills are passed with minimum debate. With all due respect, we're now in a state where the number of opposition members has become so small, they're having difficulty fielding speakers and handling debate.
I would like to say that we should consider abandoning this initiative. It is unnecessary and restrictive. I belong to that group of people who attempt to do extremely deep and serious work. Sometimes that kind of work cannot be produced in three days or three weeks. Sometimes it takes me that long to get an inter-library loan if it is a distant matter or to bring something in from elsewhere. The effect that this will have is not limiting government but limiting individual members who may take an interest in a particular bill; and I have a big problem with that. The government has a duty to uphold the rights of individuals to speak. That is what we do here. We speak. Every day I look around there is yet another limit on debate because for whatever reason many people can't get to their feet to debate or will not.
Where do we go? What is the future with all these initiatives? Is it toward no debate? We should discuss this. What is the destiny of these kinds of initiatives to limit debate? Senator Murray would tell you that in respect of mistakes made in the 1991 rule changes. He said many times that the biggest one, the first mistake, was that the 15-minute speaking time was too short. Yet, I don't see anybody bringing changes to make that longer. I find it exceptionally short in terms of developing points. That may not bother some senators, but it is of deep concern to many senators who wish to do more.
I would ask us to rethink the issue clearly. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised valid and profound points. With those alone in mind, we should abandon the initiatives if it's clear that there is deep concern.
I'd like to address the final matter of government business. At present, there is no member of the government in this house, for whatever reason. The government has decided wrongly, I believe, that there will be no ministers in the Senate. I wish you to know that the privileges that the government has in the Senate in respect of government business do not flow from any rules of the Senate; they flow from the presence the presence and involvement of a minister. It is not clear and I will say it is improper that government is hanging on to those rights and privileges for government business when it has no membership in the Senate. It does not matter that they point to a brief period in time when Diefenbaker did that. It was a bad practice. It is the presence, involvement and leadership in the Senate of a minister of the Crown that creates the government's privileges to do things in the Senate. Other than that, senators who are Conservatives are just supporters of the government. That question will come up sooner or later, just like by prorogation, the Auditor General has no more power to be here. It is not healthy that the Rules Committee should be leading in what I consider to be undesirable tendencies.
Senator Frum: I would like to direct a question to Senator Nolin. It's partly in response to what Senator Cools just said when she said that this chamber does not suffer from a surplus of debate.
The way the rules are now, it seems that one of the time-honoured techniques of dealing with a bill in the Senate, if it's not popular, is to ignore it. That's one reason we don't have debate. Will the proposed rule change encourage more debate because of the time pressures on a bill? Maybe it would actually increase the amount of discussion on a bill.
Is there a scenario in which the majority, to address Senator Furey's and Senator Fraser's concern, would be able to use the three hours and 15 days to drown out or dominate opposition debate? When you have both mechanisms, three hours plus 15 days, I can't imagine a scenario where the opposition wouldn't have ample opportunity to speak to a bill if they wanted to.
Senator Nolin: To answer your first concern, that's exactly the conclusion we came to. It will promote debate, not limit it.
To go to your second question, we took the First Session of the Forty-first Parliament and looked into the time allotted to each item that is not government. It spanned two years. That document can be circulated; it's available.
When you look at only non-government bills from the House of Commons, the average time of debate was 56 minutes. That's the longest period, over two years. The longest is 377. Third reading, 387 minutes. Second reading, it's one of a kind. As I mentioned, the government lost the vote on it. So 232 minutes at second reading and 387 minutes at third reading, and 56 minutes average on all these House of Commons private members' bills.
When you look at Senate public bills, the average is 42 minutes. On motions, the average is five minutes.
So to be able to match the conditions that we are proposing in the proposed amendment, it will automatically force debate, not limit the debate. The government had the majority all along for the First Session of the Forty-first Parliament. The government could have used its majority to rule everything. When the government decided to do it, they lost it.
Senator Frum: From the Speaker's point of view, if he has a list of people who wish to speak to a bill, he alternates between the sides. In order words, you can't say that the majority would say, "We're going to speak for three hours, every day, for 15 days." I just can't imagine a scenario —
Senator Nolin: There is no specific rule on who speaks and who speaks after, but there's a convention. It goes on either side.
Senator Frum: I'm just saying that the opposition would have ample opportunity to debate a bill, if it wanted to, in this scenario. There's nothing to prevent that.
Senator Nolin: In 180 minutes, three hours, definitely the senator who wants his item to go through will be forced to line up many people.
Senator Frum: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Nolin: The document with the numbers is circulating. It's quite revealing when you look at those numbers.
The idea behind this is not to limit but to make sure that we are fair; the chamber is asked to vote and the question is put on as many items as possible. That's the idea behind it.
Senator Furey: Yes, chair. I have a proposal with respect to how we move forward with this, but I don't want to cut off debate here.
The Chair: We will delay you until others are on the list.
Senator Furey: Yes, but perhaps I should make it anyway, and then people can contemplate it while we have further debate.
I had a call this morning from Senator David Smith, who is stuck in Toronto. He wanted, if at all possible, to delay the vote on this matter until our next meeting. I agree with that. I think Senator Cools has made a good point, that we take some time to rethink this change. Another week will give both sides an opportunity to take this to our caucuses and have a more fulsome debate. My proposal, after we finish debate, is that we postpone any voting on this until our next meeting.
Senator Fraser: I have a couple of quick observations and then a question. First, in response to Senator Frum: Technically, it would be possible to block any opposition or, for that matter, government person because the leaders have unlimited time. You may recall my own leader, I think it was only last fall, giving a major speech, where he spoke for well over an hour and then adjourned the debate for the balance of his time, and then returned for another hour or more the next day.
If you the leader spoke for an hour, an hour and a half, and then adjourned for the balance of the time, that could easily eat up three hours. He doesn't have to adjourn and speak the next day. He can speak on day 1 and then adjourn until day 15, if he really wanted to. I'm not saying this is likely, but it could happen.
On the matter of the disposition of this report, I would just observe that it has been the practice in this committee for changes in the rules to be done by consensus, and in particular, by consensus of both sides. I still bear the scars from the subcommittee that I chaired — Mr. Heyde is smiling a little bit sadistically here — having made proposed changes that were rejected by one side or the other, despite the fact that the subcommittee had been unanimous. But that was fine. We accepted that. We operated on the assumption that there has to be consensus in the Senate about what we do, about how we govern ourselves.
My question, Senator Nolin, has to do with the actual procedure outlined here. I understand you're proposing to amend the report to provide for the possibility of deferring the vote, which certainly, if we're driven to it, that would be a very important element to include. However, I'm wondering why, since it is so clearly modelled on the procedure for time allocation for government business, you do not provide for notice of this motion to be given. When time allocation is being proposed on government business, it proceeds by way of notice of motion; and then only when that motion can be called in the normal course of events is there an actual debate and vote on the time allocation.
In this case, you're saying it can be done immediately without notice, and I find that odd. Why would you have made that choice?
Senator Nolin: I'm not suggesting that.
Senator Fraser: That's the way it reads.
Senator Nolin: It's a motion, so that would follow the rules that we need a notice of motion.
Senator Cools: Yes, motions need notice.
Senator Fraser: I will be glad to be corrected on this, but what we say here is that a motion that an item of other business be not further adjourned may be moved when the item is called. That sounds to me as if we're setting up a procedure that does not require notice.
Senator Nolin: Let me go back to the drawing board, and I will make sure that we respect that principle of notice, definitely. I think that is appropriate, definitely.
By the way, I totally agree with Senator Furey's proposal that we should take time. I'm also for consensual agreement around this table.
The Chair: Senator Fraser, if I may, nothing would stop, after the leader speaks for an hour, somebody else bringing it forward when it's called, speaking over the 15 days and then adjourning it.
Senator Nolin: It's stretching the rules.
Senator Fraser: Senator Nolin rightly referred to practice. It's not something we would normally do, interrupt a leader.
The Chair: Agreed, but we could; nothing stops us. Certainly if we felt somebody was going to eat up the time and hopefully the 15 days on their part, I don't think any of us would stand by and allow it to continue.
Senator Cools: I just wanted to concur in Senator Furey's suggestion. It's not in the form of a proposal but a suggestion that we postpone debate. He said "the vote." I was thinking we should postpone the debate entirely until the deputy chairman could be present. There is a host of other things, but we should really stop and figure it out. There are members here who do different kinds of work than other members, and endless hours. Some of these speeches I bring forward are a hundred hours in the writing, never mind in the reading, and I would be supremely disturbed if, in the process of doing that work, which is hugely time-consuming — and you know that; "Get out the books," as you frequently say, Senator Nolin — if that were interrupted or prevented.
Senator Nolin: Not at all.
Senator Cools: Okay. That is still my concern, but you just said no. You know that for a long time here I've been concerned that every rule that comes forward has the purpose of limiting debate. There are few that are creating debating opportunities.
Senator Nolin: This one will create debate. You have my word.
Senator Cools: You still have to prove the case to me. I look forward to future debates so that Senator Nolin can prove his point to me.
Senator Nolin: That's why I'm talking about the dynamic. Let's make sure that when we take a decision on it, we will have answered all the questions and everyone will be happy.
Senator Cools: And make sure the motions will be on notice, as most motions are. That's a big issue.
Senator Nolin: Absolutely.
Senator Martin: I should also apologize to my fellow committee members about my absence in the last few sessions. Senator Fraser and I are often at the scroll meetings and if we're running late, we're not able to attend. It's nice to be at the table to listen to this very important discussion.
In the position I now have, in dealing with the Orders of the Day and what will be happening in the chamber, I've come to greater appreciate the rules that we do have in place and yet there are pressures that I personally feel, when certain members are asking about important pieces of legislation, as Senator Runciman said, to try to explain how private members' legislation will work its way through the Senate and how it can be held up or adjourned for very long stretches of time.
I wanted to thank the subcommittee for the work that they have done and say that perhaps this is a really good opportunity for us, as a Senate, to look at ways that we can strengthen and modernize the current rules that are in place and how debate is conducted in the Senate.
With respect to Senator Cools, I fully appreciate the expertise and the institutional knowledge that she brings, as with other members around this committee and in our chamber, but I also struggle at times to try to explain how things work and why things become so delayed. When we're standing and standing and standing again, this seems to be a proposal for serious consideration to look at not only how do we become more efficient and how do we modernize in a way that will do justice to this very important institution and the traditions that are in place but also how do we become responsible and more accountable to all of the interested stakeholders that we are responsible to as well.
Senator Nolin, as pro tempore, is there a risk of one side dominating debate when the Speaker plays a role in acknowledging senators that rise?
Senator Nolin: The risk is already there. That's why I'm saying I'm convinced, and the subcommittee is convinced, that it will trigger more debate, not limit debate, because you will need speakers for three hours on either side. The actual way the rules are written, a majority can impose on the debate. Now at least we will have a structure or a frame, but we must respect the advice and the reasonable concern of Senator Cools. I think we must go into it and make sure that we are covering all the angles because definitely the idea is to debate. We're a Parliament; it's a place for debate. I think that's exactly what we're trying to achieve. If not, let us go back to the drawing board.
Senator Cools: That's why I love you, senator. It is such a pleasure to have you as the Speaker pro tempore. That's my feeling.
Senator Nolin: Thank you.
The Chair: Before I call Senator Joyal, in response to Senator Runciman's comments earlier, I believe he was referring to the same bill that I have a concern about. I think it's one speaker short of three hours, 290. We are on two different sides of this. Both of us want a vote and neither of us have the ability right now to try to drive that three-hour debate and a vote on something that both of us believe will win. I have the same comment about the same bill from the other side, I'm afraid. I think it is an area where we would have more debate on the bill if we had the ability to do this and know we could have a vote with two more speakers.
Senator Joyal: I am for virtue and I'm also for the institution — the virtue being that a senator should not really take the institution hostage by refusing and refusing and refusing and postponing and postponing. I think that's a fair preoccupation that we could address.
On the other hand, one of the major powers of this institution — and I say that with the greatest respect for Senator Runciman — is that we're not the first house, we're the second house. We're the house of sober second thought. That is, by the very definition of it, we should take our time in reviewing things.
Time, in this house, is a matter of essence. This house, in using its capacity to review legislation, can address it in various ways. It can say "no" outright; it can say "yes" outright; or it can say "wait a minute, we need to think about this." I think it is in "wait a minute, we need to think about this" where we concentrate our preoccupation today.
In other words, the power in the house to delay an issue or to delay the final vote on an issue is of the essence of the Senate. In fact, it is sometimes in using that power that we bring the deepest sober second thought to an issue.
It seems to me that if we are to frame that power of the Senate, we have to be very conscious of what I call the law of unintended consequence. I don't doubt the motive of Senator Nolin. Senator Nolin has been in the house for many years and I think that he can relate to many examples that cross my mind when I make those comments. On the other hand, when we are invited to adopt such an amendment that deals with the heart of the institution in the exercise of its power, we have to understand what we're doing. We're not a city council whereby we have a slate of issues and we pass them, we manage them, we go back home and we're happy we've done our work. Many times I've gone to the house and I've listened to what was being said or read what was being said and I have thought about it. Thinking about what we're doing is an important thing.
Let's take a private member's bill, not a government bill addressed as a private member's bill. We're adult men and women here; we can look at the ceiling but we know the game of business. Let's say we're talking about a private member's bill, a real one, one that originates individually from a senator. I have introduced many of those bills over the years, sometimes four times. I remember one that I introduced with Senator Andreychuk as a complement bill. Senator Andreychuk introduced it; I introduced it. We introduced it four times throughout various sessions. It never came to a final vote, but it kept the issue on the agenda, and it is a fundamental issue with the way we do business in the Senate and with the way the rights of citizens are involved and the rights of the employees of Parliament. It's about the human rights of the employees of Parliament, which deals with the people that help us do our job and perform our responsibilities.
Certainly I'm happy to consider an avenue to prevent the Senate being taken hostage. I'm also concerned that we do not introduce, in fact, a Trojan horse whereby because the government has a majority — and believe me, I have been on the government majority for a long time also. But when we introduce amendments, we have to question ourselves: If we're no longer the majority, how will it work for us? We're not here for six or eight years; we're here for a long time, as the Supreme Court has decided. You are here for a very long time.
Senator Cools: Forget about eight years!
Senator Joyal: One day you will be on the other side, as I am. We have to question ourselves over and above our daily interests and ask how it will work for us. Will it diminish the credibility of the institution or its capacity to exercise sober second thought in some circumstances or not? This is the issue.
As much as I understand Senator Martin and the preoccupation of modernizing the institution, I'm not against modernizing. I've published a book on modernizing the institution, but it is essentially how we modernize it. In modernizing it, are we strengthening its role or are we in fact weakening its role in parliamentary process? We come second. As we know, we're not the first house.
As Senator Runciman said, if you are the first house, the government has the right to have its business performed in the first house. I totally understand that. But when we are dealing with private members' bills, it's another game. We are no longer dealing with government order here; we're dealing with private members' bills.
I'm listening to my colleagues on both sides of the table on this, but I will need some time, Mr. Chair, and I'm very genuine in saying that to you. There are pros and cons on it. Again, I'm not against the idea of considering it. Is the proposal the best one or the only one? It's a fair exercise, a fair proposal. Could it be improved? Maybe. Certainly. How are we going to be dealing with it I think is a very profound element here because we're dealing with the power of the institution, and those powers are exercised on the basis of convention. How will we put them in rules? That's different. We're making a very important change of step here.
What we have been doing on an amicable basis on both sides, we are now framing it. If we frame it and through practice we feel it doesn't meet its objective, it's more difficult to undo than to do it sometimes. We will be living with it.
That's why I'm puzzled with this. I'm saying it very fairly here. I think that's why we are here, to say what we think about this. As I say, when I say that, I don't think about me personally on the basis of my past experience on some bill I would have wanted to have it voted and whatnot. That's not my preoccupation. At this stage it's essentially the nature of the institution and what we will be doing to it by taking a convention and putting it in the rules. Again, that could be modernizing the institution, but on the other hand, if we do that, we have to be sure, as I say, of the unintended consequences that this good intention at the beginning could turn out to be not exactly the way we want it to when a difficult issue comes to the table. When it is an easy issue, it's easy to debate about it; but when it is a very difficult issue, when the rights of citizens are involved, as the other bill that was mentioned this morning was being considered, I think we need some pause to think about this one.
Senator Runciman: What does strike me in this is that it's not an impossible hill to climb in terms of respecting the role of the Senate and actually coming to grips with what Senator Joyal was talking about, individuals who might take the Senate hostage, or individuals, or a party, for that matter, that may, for whatever reasons, abuse the rules as they are currently formulated. It seems to me you can deal with this issue and at the same time accomplish some degree of modernization.
I talked earlier about perhaps having an afternoon set aside for private members' legislation, and to me, that doesn't say it's cut off if a particular piece of legislation is on the schedule. It can be called and recalled. The rules can allow that to happen. What it does is drive debate. Debate is going to have to occur. I know that Senator Cools talks about research in some situations requires a great deal of time. Well, if you're looking at being recalled a number of times for this set period during a week, I think that in most instances adequate time is available for that kind of research to occur.
I think there's a way of doing this and doing it in a consensual way and at the same time modernizing the Rules of the Senate to some degree with respect to private members' legislation which I think helps us down the road in terms of trying to gain a greater understanding amongst the public in terms of how this place works and the kind of work we do and the kind of consideration we give to legislation, government and private members.
The Chair: Senator Furey, I'll come back to you.
Senator Furey: Thank you, chair. I did ask to postpone the vote because I was thinking that we may have been coming to a vote today and that of course would have had the intended consequence of postponing debate.
So I propose we postpone debate and not vote on the matter until the next sitting to give us the opportunity to bring the matter to our respective caucuses and leaderships and see if we can't reach some sort of an amicable solution to this.
The Chair: Any discussion?
Senator Cools: I support it.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. If everyone is in agreement, then we will postpone the debate and vote until next Tuesday morning.
Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: I was just wondering if the subcommittee will discuss this again, because I am not part of the subcommittee.
The Chair: No. I think at this point it's important that we take it to our respective places and have discussion maybe in our caucuses as well. I think the subcommittee, the minor changes we're talking about, amendments and the notice, for example, can be easily dealt with without having to have another subcommittee meeting, but if we do, it will be prior to next Tuesday.
If there is nothing further, I'll adjourn the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)