Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 2 - Evidence - April 1, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 1, 2014
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day, at 9:31 a.m., pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), for the consideration of amendments to the Rules of the Senate; and for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome. Thank you very much to everyone for being here today, particularly those from the East, who I know had to fight a snowstorm to make it.
Speaking of the East, I want to welcome Senator Norm Doyle as our newest member of the Rules Committee. It's great to have you here, Norm, and I know you'll bring some thoughtful perspective to our discussions.
Senator Doyle: This is a very exciting committee I'm hearing.
The Chair: There you go. It's all true. Everyone has the list in front of them, but I'm going to jump to No. 5 first, if that's okay, so I can get it moving along.
As we know, there have been ongoing discussions about parliamentary privilege, in particular, as it pertains to the Senate. It has been discussed previously as well in this committee and in the Senate, and we've had a number of discussions with other countries that are wrestling with the dialogue around parliamentary privilege.
As a result, the steering committee agreed that we would put forward a subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on Rules to deal specifically with parliamentary privilege. Our subcommittee will be struck and will consider the future work of this committee and recommend as part of the continuing review of the Rules of the Senate, pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), that the committee study the processes for dealing with questions of privilege in the Senate and related issues. The subject is complex, of course, and very challenging, and I think it would be helpful if we had a subcommittee that could actually bring some dialogue forward to this committee in a more streamlined way, rather than the whole committee continuing to work on this.
The subcommittee, if agreed here, would consist of Senator Furey, Senator Joyal, who has agreed, Senator Nolin and I. If we're okay, can I have a motion?
Senator McCoy: Is there discussion?
Senator D. Smith: I was going to discuss it first. I'm happy to move the motion, but in a way, this is a continuation of the work that our committee did that was updating the rules in trying to make them clearer, and where there were problems that had arisen, systematically trying to bring clarity to them. It was chaired by Senator Fraser.
We got quite a few of the items adopted. They were held up in the chamber, but that has since been solved. I won't go into the history of that. Well, it's solved. The only area we haven't finalized, and I'm quite happy with the status quo, is on the tributes issue. I think this initiative will continue this work, and I think the makeup is a good bunch of people with experience. It's helpful when you have people with experience here, so I'm supportive of this.
Senator McCoy: I have a question.
The Chair: Sure.
Senator McCoy: Would you consider putting an independent senator on this committee?
The Chair: Personally, I didn't strike the committee. I've been trying to make sure we have the right level of expertise and experience. I'm not keen on having it grow to the size of the committee, and that might be what we have.
Senator McCoy: You've got 15 members on the committee; you've only got four here. I think that in the spirit of our going forward and reform — I see Senator Nolin is nodding — it might be useful. If so, I would volunteer.
The Chair: I won't be chairing the subcommittee, so I'll allow others to speak to this as well.
Senator Nolin: It's important to have every corner of the committee represented. The way I understand it, it's really to put some kind of framework around helping the committee work, but I don't have a problem. I agree with that.
Senator D. Smith: You know, the culture that we've had here is not total unanimity necessarily, but we always want to have both sides, both government and opposition in support, because then you just ram stuff through because it gets outvoted. This ratio isn't comparable to some of the ratios they have, but it reflects our culture. At least you want both sides.
Senator McCoy: Now we want all sides.
Senator D. Smith: So I'm comfortable. I think we want the input.
The Chair: By the end of the day, the work still has to come back to this committee. Senator Unger.
Senator Unger: With all due respect, aren't you all independent senators now?
Senator D. Smith: Well, I don't know if you really want to get into that. In one sense, yes, but on the other hand, we are officially the Senate Liberal caucus as determined by the Speaker, and we are the official opposition. In order for a Parliament to function properly, you have to have an opposition, so we are the opposition and our name is the Senate Liberal caucus. What we don't do is attend the Liberal national caucus, but I don't think that means our status here is, quite frankly, affected.
The Chair: Remembering that the work of this subcommittee in particular is about bringing back information to the committee as a whole rather than the committee walking through the large amount of work that I think will be required.
Senator Batters: Chair, if you believe that it's necessary to have another Conservative on that subcommittee to have the appropriate balance, I would be willing to do that, but only if you think it's necessary.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senator. So we have no disagreement with adding a fifth person?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I'll look for a motion. Do I need a motion? I look for an amended motion, please.
Senator Nolin: So moved.
Senator D. Smith: I'll second that.
Senator Nolin: We'll do it, Senators Smith and Nolin.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator McCoy, for volunteering. Everyone has a copy of the report. If you wish, I could read it or I could dispense.
Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Thanks to those who have volunteered. Senator Joyal, you volunteered. Thanks to those who have volunteered to sit on this committee. It truly is appreciated. I think it's timely as well. I know it has been a concern of many senators, past and present, in particular when it comes to the utilization of privilege and the process by which it's used and the practice by which it's used.
The next item is an update on broadcasting. We had a presentation — I'm trying to remember how many people came — on broadcasting by CPAC, just from the perspective of providing us with what it would look like to have broadcasting in the Senate.
I think overall — I'll speak for myself — I was impressed with what they were proposing, not from a television perspective but from a CPAC webcast perspective, where people could pick and choose; they could watch Question Period, for example.
Overall the webcast model looked okay from my perspective, but I would ask to hear from others who attended or if you have any questions in relation to what CPAC spoke to us about.
Senator D. Smith: They didn't discuss putting it on daily.
The Chair: They did discuss what it would take. First of all, they can't compete with the house. They have an agreement with the house that the house is always first, which would mean that we could not be live on the days the house sits. Other than the house shutting down early in June or December, we could not be live.
The second piece is — without engaging in extra costs — it would have to come from within their 24 hours allocated, which means, for example, the third repeat of the Banking Committee might be replaced with two hours of Senate broadcast. They could replay it at a different time other than live, which is an option.
Then it would also, though, involve having to decide which two hours or what time it would be played, what day possibly, and that might get into some production discussion within the Senate as to how we do that, which may increase the cost. They did also accept that — I can't remember the cost, Senator Batters, maybe you do. It was about $600,000 for them to develop this tool —
Senator Batters: Yes, 500 and something.
The Chair: — which they would own the cost of developing the webcast system. They weren't looking for anything from us other than commitment. They were actually going to fund it. They had the same perception — and many people do — that it's timely and there would be interest from the public.
I think from their perspective as well, though, they would see webcasting as the better of the options because it provides multiple access at different times; you could watch repeats or Question Period from last Wednesday, this evening, if you wish.
I recommend you go onto their website. I'll get Charles to send you the link. If you go on the website and see what they do now, the quality is actually quite spectacular. It was at least as good as what you would see on most televisions.
Senator D. Smith: When this issue was revived again, it was really revived more in Internal Economy, and some of it was at the initiative of the Speaker, who is quite keen on this. Do we have clarity as between the two committees and who's doing what?
The Chair: My understanding is Internal Economy, because they hold the purse strings, regardless of what we think, they would have to approve the financial costs of implementing broadcasting.
Some of the other discussions I think being held were whatever we do, could it be moved to our new location in 2017, and the indications were that whatever was done could be mobile enough to be moved to the new location with limited cost.
Ultimately, our discussion is more around if broadcasting takes place, how would it occur and whether or not rules are required to be changed. As we know, and as I'm sure everyone realizes, everything in the Senate is already broadcast now via webcast audio only. The only difference, from our perspective, is that it would also have visual. I don't see much difference in that personally, but ultimately that was the discussion.
Senator Batters: While it wouldn't be able to be live on television, it would be carried live on the webcast. You could have the ability to watch the committees live or the chamber live, should that be done in the future, that sort of thing.
The Chair: That's a great point.
Senator D. Smith: If there was an odd item like the Wallin and Duffy speeches again, I'm sure CBC Newsworld would carry it live.
The Chair: That's right. Anybody participating in the CPAC system could carry whatever they like live outside of CPAC. That's a great point. The webcast itself would show the Senate live every single day, but it would also give you increased access to other parts.
Senator D. Smith: Okay.
The Chair: I think now we really are at the point where I don't see much for us to do until we hear from Internal Economy as to whether or not they're going to fund broadcasting. I try not to talk about television or not television because having met with CPAC, it is bigger than that. A discussion as to whether or not Internal Economy would fund broadcasting is I think what all of us have to wait for at this point. I'm not sure where they are with that. I will have to raise it with the chair of the committee, Senator Kinsella.
Senator Joyal: Do they have a formal recommendation in front of them from a subcommittee of some sort, or is it informal talk at this point in time?
The Chair: They don't, but we could present them with a formal recommendation from a Rules Committee perspective, if we agree with that. That's a good point.
Senator Joyal: I think it would strengthen the basis for you and whoever represents the committee with some kind of a formal consensus.
The Chair: Do we have consensus to make a recommendation?
Senator Cools: Thank you, chairman. If you recall, many weeks ago, that idea was broached, that we should move a formal motion authorizing you to speak to those other chairmen. It seems to me it would be desirable that that committee have something formal before it. At least it would outline some definitions of what it is that they're supposed to be doing.
The Chair: Thanks, senator.
Senator Cools: If not boundaries but definitions.
The Chair: We have had meetings with the chair to discuss what role we were taking and how we believe CPAC presented to us. I do want to say I was very impressed with the professionalism of the CPAC plan and the fact that, more importantly, they weren't looking for anything from us other than agreement. They have the finances to actually develop the system, and I again would welcome everyone to look at it.
It's a good point whether or not we're at a point where we have consensus. Is there any disagreement that we go forward with a letter of support?
Senator McCoy: I don't have any disagreement, but I have a curious question. Who owns it? Who owns the film? Even though we agree to let them do all of this —
The Chair: We retain ownership.
Senator McCoy: That's part of the privilege. Is that documented somewhere?
Senator Joyal: It's like a document.
Senator Cools: CPAC is a good idea and has served an extremely good and useful purpose, but years ago, there was a notion that CBC and all of the newspapers had a responsibility to cover the houses. I am sure that many of you here would know that a hundred years ago, the House of Commons Debates used to be reported verbatim by shorthand and printed in the newspapers as a matter of public interest. I could be wrong on all of this; I haven't thought about this for a long time.
At some point, CBC and these other players surrendered their duties or no longer thought of it as their duty to report on the houses, and around that time a group of what I would consider very bright individuals conceptualized the idea of creating CPAC. The names of those who own CPAC are well known, but people like Philip Lind, and I do not know the state of his health these days, but he was very well known for his very good work with CPAC. They've done very good work. And remember, they were at one point the only game in town.
The Chair: I agree, and I think that's the important part. It's not an individual provider; it's a conglomerate of providers that field the responsibility.
Senator Cools: We should look at this matter because knowledge of it is always useful.
The Chair: If we're in agreement, then, we'll draft a — Senator Unger?
Senator Unger: It is the cable companies that fund them. I don't know if that confers ownership or not.
The Chair: I certainly think it's a managing group.
If we agree, we'll prepare a short letter identifying to Internal Economy our support for them to move forward, that we've met with CPAC and, from our perspective at least, feel there's a value to increased broadcasting beyond what's presently implied. Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I say "broadcasting" because some people want to go to TV and some people want to go to the web. The financing may drive that, to be fair, because I know one is a lot more expensive than the other. The reality is that CPAC will say they can't broadcast us live on TV but they can on the web. I think we leave it by saying "we support broadcasting;" that is important.
Senator Nolin, as chair of the subcommittee, could you give a few short moments around the discussion on private members' bills?
Senator Nolin: The question of private members' bills and time allocation of those bills is under discussion. We are trying to develop a way to achieve two things: First, to maintain the privileges of senators and to promote bills; and, second, to make sure that those bills will not stay on the Order Paper ad infinitum and that we can proceed with them. We are trying to develop a process to be able to achieve those two goals.
When we have a product that we think is agreeable to everyone, we will present it to you and, of course, argue it.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Nolin. Senator Joyal, do you have commentary as well, as a member of the committee?
Senator Joyal: Well, I can't really add much more than what Senator Nolin mentioned except that the subcommittee recognized there is a need to address the repetitive postponement to a point of a debate. We are very concerned about the "privilege" of any senator to introduce a private members' bill many times, and so on, the way that it has been developed as a practice in the Senate Chamber. We are concerned also that there seems to be a need to reflect upon the fact that the Senate cannot at any point in time make a decision on a proposal. It's more within the context of the conditions under which that possibility would be framed that we're reflecting at this point in time. I think that meets the concern that Senator Nolin has discussed.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Joyal. Is there other discussion?
On the next item, we have been approached by a delegation of parliamentarians from Scotland interested in meeting informally with members of this committee. The delegation is primarily interested in subjects such as parliamentary reform and powers and privileges of committees.
I have suggested we meet during our regular meeting time next Tuesday, April 8. It would be an unofficial meeting of the committee. Any members who are interested are welcome and I suggest that you attend. An email will be sent out following today's meeting, if agreed here, with details about the meeting as well as biographical information about the Scottish delegates. I think that will allow us to have more open discussion. We don't really have a reference to necessarily meet with this group, so it would allow us to have this dialogue. As Scotland walks through a number of the challenges that they have, it might offer us some insight as to how they are managing similar issues that we anticipate we will be managing.
Our suggestion will be 10 o'clock, not 9:30. I think there are five members: the presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament, two members of the Scottish Parliament, principal private secretary to the presiding officer and senior parliamentary relations officer.
Senator Nolin: An old new Parliament.
The Chair: Yes, that's true.
Senator Joyal: Which party were they representing? Do you have any information on that?
The Chair: No; it doesn't say; three women.
Senator D. Smith: It's a pro-independence government. It's mixed. It's a coalition, but they have the largest number of seats.
The Chair: I certainly think it would be an interesting discussion for all of us. Maybe we'll invite some people from across the river.
Senator Nolin: For those of us from Quebec, we are quite interested in how they negotiated a very clear question without raising any concerns.
The Chair: And it is the day after the Quebec election.
Senator Nolin: Maybe we can be inspired by that. I don't know if it will be listened to, but definitely it was inspiring to hear how a short question can be put.
The Chair: Any other questions or discussion?
Senator D. Smith: Will they be bringing some single malt?
The Chair: They might be bringing some single malt into the country.
Senator Cools: Is it possible to provide coffee and cookies?
The Chair: I will ensure we have some refreshments. Hopefully, they will bring some refreshments as well.
Shall we go out with the biographical information? If you know you're going to be here, it would be good for us to know.
Senator Cools: Whenever a chairman of a committee has a private meeting or holds a private meeting, it is very embarrassing for the chairman if a fair number of members do not show up so I'll be there.
The Chair: I think that's very good.
Senator Cools: Oh, yes. These things are very common.
The Chair: If there are no other concerns or questions, we will adjourn. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)