Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 2 - Evidence - February 11, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 11, 2014
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day, at 9:32 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: Good morning, folks. "Go Canada go," I guess we could start with. It's great to see our athletes doing so well overseas.
Welcome to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament meeting. We have a few things on the agenda for today. We discussed them previously, so we should be able to walk through them fairly quickly.
We will have a discussion around a subcommittee looking into time constraints regarding private members' bills to try to deal with those bills a little more quickly and strategically. One person we had some discussion with sitting on the subcommittee is not here, so we will wait to see if he shows up.
Four reports were adopted last year but did not clear the necessary hurdles in the Senate. We could walk through them one by one, if that's okay. If we can adopt one or all of them today, it would be great. If there's anything we need to reconsider, then we can step back a little and have a review of those. The clerk could start with the fourth report.
I'll go through it. If you have questions, I'm sure the clerk can help us out. The report states:
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament has the honour to present its
FOURTH REPORT
Following the entry into force of the revised Rules of the Senate on September 17, 2012, your committee has, pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), continued to consider the Rules and now recommends as follows:
1. That rule 13-2 be deleted and current rules 13-3 to 13-7 renumbered as 13-2 to 13-6 respectively;
2. That:
(a) rule 16-1 be amended by the addition of the new subsection (8) as follows: —
If you need me to read the whole thing, that's great; if not, please advise. Everyone's had these for a while.
Senator D. Smith: The clerk can give us a précis of the genesis of how this was on the agenda. As I recall, it was really unanimous; it was a no-brainer.
The Chair: In relation to this specific report, Mr. Robert, was anything raised as a concern or something we should be considering here?
Charles Robert, Clerk of the Committee: Concern was raised but it was more internal to us as Procedure to try to look at some of the mechanics of how it would operate.
The purpose for having this introduced was that we would have another way to designate or have Royal Assent. When it's by the traditional ceremony, it is the Speaker who announces to the house that he has received a letter announcing that the Governor General will be coming later in the day to give Royal Assent to bills. When we do it through the process of written declaration, there is no such prior announcement. However, we've been caught in circumstances where we have had to fudge, in some sense, the sitting in order to allow the Clerk to come back to the house to give the letter to the Speaker to read to the house that, in fact, Royal Assent has been given by written declaration.
This change to the rules would simply mimic what happens when the Royal Assent is done by traditional ceremony and applied to the circumstance of written declaration so that the house could not adjourn while it was awaiting the return of the Clerk of the Senate so that the Speaker could read the letter to indicate that Royal Assent has been given.
Internally, when we were looking at this again more recently, we thought perhaps it could be tweaked, but that's for you to decide. Rather than saying "at any time during the sitting," it might be "any time once Orders of the Day have been completed." There could be no suspicion that the device was being used for any other purpose except to actually fulfill its mandate to have a letter read by the Speaker — "at any time following the completion of Orders of the Day."
The Chair: Discussion in relation to the comments of the clerk? Senator Nolin, does it make sense?
Senator Nolin: It seems quite clear; I'm all for it. I just wonder why it didn't pass before.
Senator D. Smith: I like eating fudge, but I don't like fudging. Part of the whole rationale of these reviews is to provide clarity. I think that this is part of that dynamic. We should have clarity that addresses the situation rather than fudging.
Senator Nolin: Exactly.
The Chair: Do we have adoption? Would we like to make the changes suggested or leave it as is? Leave it as is? No further discussion on the adoption of the fourth report?
Senator Nolin: I'm just curious. Do both leaderships agree to that? I recall Senator Smith asking questions of our side and it dragged on for seven or eight months.
Senator D. Smith: I would ask questions, but all of these reports were adopted unanimously.
Senator Nolin: That's why I'm even more curious.
The Chair: There's commitment to move this forward certainly on both sides, I understand.
Senator D. Smith: Agreed.
The Chair: The fourth report is adopted, with or without the change? Do you want the change — "any time once Orders of the Day have been completed?"
Senator Nolin: After Orders of the Day.
Senator D. Smith: I think the change is logical.
The Chair: The next one states:
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament has the honour to present its
FIFTH REPORT
Following the entry into force of the revised Rules of the Senate on September 17, 2012, your committee has, pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), continued to consider the Rules and now recommends as follows:
1. That rule 4-15 be amended by the addition of the new subsection (3) as follows: —
I'll dispense with reading it as everyone has it in front of them.
Mr. Robert: I think the Rules Committee, in the last session when looking at this, became frustrated with the ways by which the 15-day rule can be circumvented. They decided that any senator who adjourns for the balance of their time and then runs the clock can only do it once. This was meant to actually move the business of the house along.
The Chair: Discussion and debate in relation to this report?
Senator D. Smith: I certainly agree that when there is consensus in the house to move along you just can't have somebody perpetually stalling, so I think that this helps address that.
The Chair: Do we have adoption of this report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The next item is the sixth report. It reads:
Following the entry into force of the revised Rules of the Senate on September 17, 2012, your committee has, pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), continued to consider the Rules and now recommends as follows:
I will dispense with reading it, if I may. I will allow the clerk to quickly walk us through it. This is in relation to tributes.
Mr. Robert: This would actually introduce a new way by which tributes would be conducted. The critical paragraph is at the bottom of page 1, rule 4-3(2). Tributes to a current or former senator shall be limited to three statements of five minutes each. The 15-minute period is retained. Five minutes might give you a bit more time to say something of substance. Then the practice of inquiries under rule 4-3(5) would be institutionalized. The ability to offer a statement of appreciation for the work of a current or former senator would still be allowed, but it would occur at the end of the day and would not create an occasion that would actually delay the house from addressing the more substantive work of the sitting.
The Chair: Discussion and debate?
Senator Unger: I'm lukewarm to the idea of needing extra time to pay tribute to these glorious people who work here. However, if it does happen at the end of the day, I certainly agree with that.
Senator D. Smith: It wouldn't bother me if there were a little more flexibility here in that when we were doing this, one of our senators who has since retired, for whom I had a very high regard, didn't like tributes at all. He didn't come to the last few days, and he said he didn't want any tributes for him. He was from Manitoba. He was a great guy, but he just did not like them. In the case of some people who have been here a long time, maybe there could be a little more flexibility.
If there is one that maybe warrants one more look, it might be this one. I just toss that out. If they've got all their family in the gallery, do they have to sit there for three hours of other stuff until the end of the day and do it under inquiries? If there is consent, I don't know why you don't do it all at once and then head for the Speaker's reception. I'm just tossing this out to see what others think. If one of these four reports warranted a second look, I think it might be this one.
Senator Joyal: On the top of page 2, the text indicates, "No leave to extend Tributes. . . . No Senator shall seek leave to extend Tributes." I was under the impression that with unanimous consent the Rules of the Senate can be suspended. In order to answer the queries of Senator Smith, it states that no senator can stand up and say, "With leave of the Senate, I request that we extend the period of tributes for half an hour or 15 minutes." How could a senator request leave for unanimous consent when he or she is deprived of standing up?
Mr. Robert: It is a metaphysical question, I suppose, more than anything else.
Senator Joyal: It was not metaphysical in my opinion. It was very political.
Mr. Robert: It has been in place for some years. This was introduced by Senator Lapointe, so it is not part of the actual report that is being recommended. It was put in place because, at the time, it was his objective, I think, to limit tributes as much as possible to the 15 minutes. He was actually trying to put in place a rule that is inconsistent with the right of a senator to ask for leave to suspend a rule.
Senator Joyal: Let me give you an example, Mr. Chair. I'll say this in front of Senator Nolin. Let's take the example of our Speaker, who retires this year, after 18 years or however many years of service in the Senate.
Senator Nolin: So 1990, 24 years.
Senator Joyal: We would be limited to three interventions for a maximum of five minutes. I take an extreme case.
Senator D. Smith: That's a valid point.
Senator Joyal: I think the rule has to always be tested with an extreme case. It's a real case. We will have to address that in November of this year. How can we constrain to a point but leave flexibility for unanimous consent in some cases? Personally, I want to speak, and I would bet that many senators will also want to speak on such an opportunity.
The Chair: So a change in rule 4-3 might be suggested?
Senator Joyal: I would have second thoughts on this one.
Senator D. Smith: I'd prefer the status quo over this, frankly.
The Chair: This is already in there.
Senator D. Smith: I mean the ones that were added by Senator Lapointe.
Senator Nolin: It's already in the book.
Mr. Robert: The only thing that's being added is what is underlined.
The Chair: "No senator shall seek leave" is already in the Rules.
Senator Nolin: We have always presumed that agreement between the leaders would waive a rule, because we can always have the authority to waive.
Senator Joyal: Let's put some minds together and think about this one. The objective would be to maintain some limits. Everybody agrees with that on the principle that it cannot be extended forever, but on the other hand, when specific conditions are met, we could extend the time.
Senator Batters: I was trying to answer the metaphysical question and thinking how we could change the wording to rule 4-3(3). Instead of saying, "No senator shall seek leave," maybe it could be changed to say, "There shall be no leave to extend tributes," and then it's not specific to a senator. Then we could have unanimous consent. That would clear up that, anyway.
Senator Nolin: Or just get rid of 4-3. That's it. A rule is a rule, and there is an order there. We can suspend the order by unanimous consent, so we don't need 4-3. I think that would be the easiest way.
Senator Joyal: I like that there will be a limit. I don't want to mention any names for sake of respect for the contribution of senators, but I have seen tributes that really went overboard. It was repetitive after a certain period of time. I think the essentials had been put on the table for the sake of the tribute and the gratefulness that we have to express to senators for their individual contributions. There has to be constraint in the rules. If we open it, we would fall back into what we had before.
Believe me, sometimes it was not the best time in the Senate to listen to all of this. On the other hand, there has to be a consensus achieved by the leadership, I think, a common understanding and common sharing on the basis of many reasons. I don't want to start naming people, but there are many reasons for which the period should be extended. I gave the name of Senator Kinsella because I think that makes sense; but there are other senators whose dedication has been extraordinary for all kinds of reasons.
If the leadership is called upon to express a common approach to this, they will want to consult their respective members to achieve an extended period. There would be an extended period but not an open-ended period.
The Chair: An extra 15 or 30.
Senator Joyal: Exactly. You understand how we would build the progressive constraint so that it doesn't become an open-ended situation, which in the end is not helpful for the sake of what we want to achieve.
Mr. Robert: That was part of the analysis done by the committee in the last session, and that is why they made it easier to move tributes through an inquiry. They added that in fact for that purpose, it would be done without notice, and so it would be done the same day.
The real concern that motivated the work of the committee, when it proposed this, was the amount of time that might be taken at the beginning of the sitting, which would prevent the Senate from going about its more substantive business. That is why also, with respect to the senator who was the object of the tribute, they decided the amount of time allocated for that purpose also would be limited to 30 minutes.
Senator Unger: What about independent senators? Who agrees to extend?
The Chair: It would still be the leadership.
Would we like to set this aside or would we like to try to deal with it now?
Senator Cools: I think we should set it aside.
The Chair: I will get to you next, if you don't mind.
Senator Enverga: How many times do we have a senator leaving? It doesn't happen that often. I was thinking that maybe every time a senator leaves, the leadership could make a decision on their own.
The Chair: We must average about five or six a year.
Senator Enverga: We can do that — maybe four. Instead of making a policy that's more precise, we have to make it a little bit flexible.
Senator Cools: I would like to support the senator on that because we are burdened with rules. The number of rules has grown exponentially like Topsy over the last many years. If a senator is leaving and the leaders know that there will be a large number of tributes to him, like when Senator MacEachen left some years ago and others, the leaders usually come together and anticipate that that will happen.
Senator Enverga: That's the point.
Senator Cools: I support your point. Some of these things should not be rule planned; some of these things should be left to the developments of the moment and the needs of the time. As far as I'm concerned, every time I see new and more rules, I get a little anxious and nervous.
The other thing that concerns me, colleagues, is that we have a situation now where prorogation is no deterrent to people who are bringing initiatives, which is as it is supposed to be. The Order Paper is supposed to be washed clean. I know the name of the committee is the same, but this committee has had, as many other committees have had, considerable change in its membership. It should be borne in mind that simply to bring a report into a committee and have it readopted is insufficient and not in accordance with the spirit of the rules.
The Chair: It's good that we are walking through the report, in this case.
Senator Cools: We should be more than walking through it; we should be re-thinking and re-examining every proposition.
The Chair: I would suggest, senator, that's exactly what we are doing.
Senator Cools: You need no input.
The Chair: No, I appreciate your input. People have been providing input since we came here.
Senator Cools: I travelled all day yesterday to get here for this meeting.
The Chair: That's good. We appreciate your being here.
Senator Cools: But you have already adopted —
The Chair: The meeting started at 9:30, senator. The fact that you showed up at 9:45 —
Senator Cools: If you want to lecture me for being late, go ahead.
The Chair: I'm not lecturing you.
Senator Cools: I've already apologized for being late.
The Chair: If you want to lecture us for trying to take care of business when we arrive at 9:30, it is a little unfair, I think.
Senator Cools: I know. I'm not asking for anything and I haven't asked you for anything; I am merely making a note that this happened. It is not unusual that at this time of year when some senators are traveling extra distances to get here we kind of hold the adoption of some of these things to make sure that people can be here.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Cools: I am very sorry for being such an inconvenience, but I thought the issue that I had to raise was quite important. I would appreciate your indulgence once in a while.
The Chair: I appreciate your comment, senator.
In relation to this report, would we like to make changes today or would we like to set it aside and look at a working group?
Senator D. Smith: As soon as this other committee is struck, this could go to it.
The Chair: They could take this as well. We will set that report aside for now.
Senator Cools: Chair, there was nothing in the agenda of the report that indicated we would vote on these items today. The agenda for today, according to what I was told yesterday, says, "Pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), consideration of amendments to the Rules of the Senate" and "Consideration of a draft agenda (future business)." There was no indication that these reports would be moved to conclusion and adopted today. For example, in committee meetings where they are doing clause-by-clause of bills, it is usually indicated in the agenda so that members can know they are planning the meeting as a final examination of the issues.
I would like you to consider that, chair.
The Chair: I think, senator, that at the last meeting we discussed these four reports and that we were bringing them forward today for consideration — for adoption or not. I think everyone was sent the reports previous to today's meeting so they could look at these reports with the expectation that we would bring them forward today.
Senator Cools: I'm talking about what was indicated in the agenda.
The Chair: I understand what you said.
Senator Cools: The agenda indicates no final consideration of the issue at hand. That's all I am saying, chair.
The Chair: Understood.
The seventh report is about a time limit for speakers except as otherwise provided. I will let the clerk speak briefly to what changes we see, and then we can have discussion and debate.
Mr. Robert: The existing rules suggest that the sponsor of the bill will have 45 minutes at second reading and at third reading of the bill and that the next senator speaking will have 45 minutes as well. The difficulty here, in the eyes of the committee when it was examining this at the last session, was that the second speaker is not always the critic. The question is: How do we allocate the 45 minutes?
Senator Smith will verify that this consumed a lot of the committee's time in trying to come up with a solution. They've tried to identify the critic of the bill through the appendix so there would be less confusion and perhaps less need to negotiate on the floor, as sometimes happens, as to who could be identified as the critic of the bill. This report is meant to deal with that issue.
Senator D. Smith: That's fair. This gets back to the objective of having more clarity when it's not clear. This is consistent with our traditions, but there were instances when the second speaker wouldn't be the critic for whatever reason. To clear it up and have it in a formula that works, this was discussed at some length and agreed on unanimously as a reasonable approach.
Senator McIntyre: I have a question regarding rule 6-3(1), which states, "Except as otherwise provided . . . ." What is meant by "Except as otherwise provided?" Are we talking about a vote by the Red Chamber, or is it an agreement between the Leader of the Government and Leader of the Opposition, or is the change made by this standing committee?
Senator Nolin: All of the above.
Mr. Robert: Senator McIntyre, whenever you see the phrase in the new revised rules "except as otherwise provided," you are guaranteed that there will be in italics beneath the rule a list of exceptions relating to others rules that will identify what those exceptions are.
Senator McIntyre: So as far as the seventh report is concerned, we go to page 2 and look at the exceptions?
Mr. Robert: That's correct.
Senator Nolin: To be fair to the question, I think the main way to build that is to have unanimous consent to waive the rule, and usually it comes with agreement between the leaders.
Senator McIntyre: I have another quick question regarding page 2. It says "Others" above paragraph (d), which states, "other senators shall speak for no more than 15 minutes in debate." I assume it is 15 minutes for each senator as opposed to 15 minutes total.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr. Robert: The reason we also said "exceptions" is because the marginal note is "Time limits for speakers." There are occasions in the sitting when there are time limits imposed on anybody who is speaking in a particular debate, and that's what this list of exceptions spells out.
Senator Nolin: If I may, young colleagues would be interested to know that, not far back in the history of our institution, speaking time was unlimited. I'm sure Senator Cools will remember that.
Senator Cools: I remember that very well.
Senator Nolin: It was unlimited. Someone could just stand and speak forever.
Senator D. Smith: Filibuster.
Senator Nolin: That was how it was done.
Senator Cools: And it worked.
Senator Nolin: Minimal rules. All those rules were introduced to try to more properly organize the institution. That's why time limitation is an important feature. There is a history to that.
Senator Cools: But in those days, it was a different place. Senators were quite different and attitudes towards each other, even though they were partisan, were quite different. But it worked, because if a senator needed an hour, or two hours, he got that hour, but he would not demand an hour or two for a long time again.
Senator Murray was the Leader of the Government. With some good reasons, let's be quite frank, they brought in some new rules. Many of those rules have been proven to be not very good and not particularly helpful to debate, but Senator Murray was always of the opinion that with the creation of the 15-minute rule, 15 minutes was far too little. He has always said in private conversations to us, and to me, that one of the first rules that should be changed was to make that 15 minutes more because 15 minutes is simply not sufficient to build a legal or parliamentary argument. I just put that out.
In those days, it worked, because there was a common agreement between senators that it would work. We don't have that confidence in senators anymore, so it's a new ball game.
Senator Enverga: I have a question with regard to the sentence "other senators shall speak for no more than 15 minutes in debate." Can they participate in debate once or twice, or can they speak only once for 15 minutes?
The Chair: Once for 15 minutes.
Senator Enverga: They could have another time to debate, right?
The Chair: Another kick at the cat.
Senator Enverga: It's only once?
Mr. Robert: It should be understood that that's per question, so if there's a second reading of a bill and a reasoned amendment is moved, the reasoned amendment becomes a new question. Any senators can again participate in the debate, or most senators will again be able to participate in the debate on the reasoned amendment.
Senator Joyal: I just want to make the precision that in fact it's not 15; it is 20 minutes, as you know.
Senator Cools: The rule says 15.
Senator Joyal: I've been in the Senate not as long as you, but I've never seen the Senate deny the five minutes.
I'm sorry, senator. When I speak, I would appreciate it if you listened, and then I'll listen to you.
Senator Cools: I'm listening to you.
Senator Joyal: Thank you.
The rule has been 15, but with consent from both sides it's an extra 5. It is 20 minutes. We're speaking of 20 minutes in practice.
Senator Cools is right that the five additional minutes — is it in the Rules or not?
Senator Cools: No, it's not.
Senator D. Smith: It's a convention.
The Chair: It's case law.
Senator Joyal: It is 20 minutes. After the 20 minutes, it's over.
I have seen instances whereby a senator was standing up and had prepared a speech with notes, and that senator requested to finish what he had in hand. I remember that it went beyond five minutes because the Senate gave the authorization.
The Chair: In some cases, they just refused to sit down and continued talking.
Senator Joyal: There are cases where it was denied. There's still some flexibility in the Rules on that. It's not absolute. If we change the rules, we have to take that into account as well.
Senator Cools: If you think about it, it is exercised individually and selectively. Yes, some senators are pretty confident that if they ask for an extra five minutes, they will get it. Others are not so confident. There's something about the arbitrary exercise of power that I find undesirable. My British liberalism training taught me to eschew that. It's still something we should take a very serious look at.
Senator Joyal: On that, may I ask the researcher what the rule is in the House of Lords in terms of limits of time and intervention? We are talking of "Britishness" here.
Sebastian Spano, Analyst, Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs Section, Library of Parliament: I'm happy to research it for you. I don't have the answer right away. I'm sorry.
Senator Nolin: I think it's unlimited.
The Chair: Until tea, probably.
Senator Nolin: We paralleled the rule for many years, until 1992.
Senator Batters: Then somebody read a phone book.
The Chair: Somebody read a book to have it translated, I think is what I read.
Senator Nolin: One comment to Senator Cools: I think, Senator Cools, at the end of the day, it's still the wisdom of the entire chamber to decide.
Senator Cools: It is, but I saw an instance some months back where a senator entered into barter with the Speaker in respect of granting the extra five minutes to the senator in question, basically saying, "If you do this, I will grant it." Of course the Speaker said, "Well, we can't really do that."
Senator Nolin: I don't recall that.
Senator Cools: I can show you the debate. You should look at it.
Senator Nolin: I will, because it's unusual to have the Speaker bartering.
Senator Cools: She didn't barter.
Senator Nolin: You just said that.
Senator Cools: The senator who declined was doing the barter.
The Chair: Do we have agreement on adoption of this report?
Senator D. Smith: I think so. What we're talking about is already there.
Senator Cools: Just for the record, I am going to abstain. As I said before, the agenda made no indication that these reports were going to be adopted today and, if you weren't here at the dot of time, you wouldn't get to vote on it.
Perhaps we can pay more careful attention to how we draft the agendas. This has been a big problem in this committee for many years. The consideration of a draft agenda is always the item that is put on the agendas. It's not very clear what the committee is actually doing or intending to do. If the committee — the leadership, or the chair, or these mysterious people that we don't know who they are — has decided to bring a debate to conclusion, the agenda should be crystal clear on it so people can govern themselves accordingly.
Senator Nolin: To be fair to the chair, I read the agenda in both French and English. In English, it says "consideration of amendments," and in French "étude des modifications." It's quite clear. "Consideration" or "étude" could lead to the adoption of an amendment. I just want to be fair for the chair.
The Chair: Thanks.
Senator Nolin: During the course of last week, we received the four previous reports. It was quite clear what we would do today.
Senator Cools: I want to challenge that, chair. These words constitute the agenda of this committee week after week because this committee has a propensity and proclivity for meeting in camera. I've objected to that a lot over the years; but today it's not in camera. For example, when we did those big rule changes two years ago, all meetings were in camera. The Senate was deprived of any record to read to see how these committee decisions were made or the thinking of the senators, which is very important. It was the first time in the history of this institution that you didn't have records of proceedings.
The Chair: In relation to the agenda, if I may, I will personally take on that more information be provided in the agenda.
Senator Cools: Let me repeat for the last time.
The Chair: I think I heard you the first time.
Senator Cools: Maybe you did, but your attitude today is very dismissive, so I'm trying to be clear for the record. I don't like being dismissed, and you can "ooh" as much as you want. I can raise this on the floor if you want.
The Chair: Senator Joyal, please.
Senator Joyal: On the point raised by Senator Cools, it seems that when a committee is considering a report, it is always in camera.
May I finish?
The Chair: Please, Senator Joyal.
Senator Joyal: I've been on the Legal Committee for a number of years, and when we considered a report, it was always in camera. Rarely have I participated in committee considering a report that was in public. Normally when a committee reaches the report stage, the chair says, "We'll now move in camera because we'll be considering the report." There are all kinds of interventions that are very worthwhile sometimes that are made during the discussion or exchange among senators that are not printed for anybody to read. That could be made at report stage later in the chamber and be shared with senators. The practice of committees considering reports is to do so in camera, unless I'm under the wrong impression.
The Chair: Certainly it has been that way since I've been here, Senator Joyal. Having sat with you on Legal, I think it's been helpful to the dialogue.
Senator Cools: I never challenged that. I've not said that the consideration of reports of committees should not be in camera. I'm saying that all the debate and the proceedings on the Rules are always done in camera, not just the report. I'm not objecting to that.
My point is: If today you wanted a decision on the reports, it should have said "consideration of Reports No. 5, 6, 4," and then we would all know you're moving towards a decision. We would all have that information. That would not be the secret purview of one or two. The agenda does not say that.
You've already undertaken, and I accept it, that you would look at the agenda to make sure it is a clear to signal to senators where you want to go. That is your right and duty as a chair.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Cools: I defer to that at any time of the day. I'm saying to you that this was not clear and that is my point. There was a major point here that I wanted to speak to, but I arrived a few minutes late, and it was passed. You can just say, "Too bad." I should have been here, it's true, but I don't think it's a healthy, wise or humane way to run affairs around here.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
We had a discussion as well, and thanks for allowing us to deal with those reports. The sixth report we looked at separately; and we'll bring it back. Steering had a discussion around —
Senator Joyal: Have we adopted the fifth and seventh reports?
The Chair: Three of the four.
In steering we had a discussion around future business. As you know, we discussed previously the utilization of cameras in the Senate. In fact, there have been some meetings between, I think, Internal Economy and CPAC. There will be a future meeting that will include members of the Rules Committee in any discussion with CPAC as it may require changes to the Rules to have camera access in the Senate. Internal Economy is primarily looking at it from a financial perspective. From our perspective, we want to make sure we are in the room and have skin in the game from a Rules perspective.
I don't know if we want to have a discussion or intervention around CPAC or cameras in the Senate. Concern has been raised about what they will show if they're permitted to pick and choose as it may not always be a fulsome discussion or viewing of what happens in the Senate. Putting all of this in place and CPAC or others deciding they won't show it at all wouldn't be helpful either.
I would like to open it up for discussion. I know some people have various concerns.
Senator Cools: Chair, at the pre-recess meeting I think you asked the committee to vote on granting you authority to meet with CPAC.
The Chair: That's correct.
Senator Cools: Perhaps we could begin with a report from that meeting.
The Chair: If I may, there hasn't been a meeting with CPAC. It's on February 24. Helpfully, I haven't met with them yet, because there are questions around, for example, CPAC picking 20 minutes a week and what 20 minutes they will be.
Senator Cools: I'm glad.
The Chair: We'll have a dialogue around the expectations we place on CPAC rather than just ask if they're willing to show something.
Senator Cools: I thank you for that and I laud that in a very serious way. I was a little concerned about your meeting with CPAC. I'm always a little concerned when a committee is intending to go into a study to bring an agency, organization or individual before it as a witness. I'm concerned that you begin by meeting with one of those parties, because you couldn't do that in any other court but here. I'm pleased, in a way, that you have stepped back for a second to rethink it a bit and to clarify the issues to be raised with CPAC, bearing in mind that in the field, CPAC has a total monopoly. We should be mindful of that.
Since we've been planning to do a more thorough study and call other witnesses, it's not fair to the other witnesses that you're going to call when they hear that you've already had a set of meetings with CPAC. That was mentioned in our last go-round when we looked at those issues. I'm speaking of when Senator Segal's motion was before the committee. Those concerns were raised. I laud you and thank you for that, chair.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Batters: I want on the record that I don't view CPAC as having a monopoly. I view them as performing a valuable public service for Canadians on shows that never would be seen by Canadians if it weren't for the service they provide.
Senator Cools: It's still a monopoly.
Senator D. Smith: They're not really a monopoly, given this web stuff that you can get now and channels that aren't necessarily allocated.
By way of background to newer members of the committee, the whole issue of television has been reviewed by this committee about three times that I can recall, and we just never had a consensus. It wasn't a government/opposition thing. There was no consensus on either side.
Given the recent controversies in the Senate over the last year, when Wallin and Duffy were giving those very emotional speeches, if you were looking at it, you just saw a photo, but you couldn't see them speak. I think there has been a growing amount of support for access there. Of course, the technology continues to make it easier to do it. I'm not a high techie, and I can't even articulate it, but Senator Batters' point is correct. When we would talk with CPAC before in terms of having the Senate Question Period, which sometimes is lively but usually really isn't, there was no way they were interested in carrying it. They did carry some of the committee work, which is quite good, but even that had to be prodded a bit from time to time.
I think it's the right thing to do to have the dialogue, and have our chair dialogue, and also identify other technical options. I know that Speaker Kinsella is super-keen on this happening before he goes.
I just give that as background. I'm supportive that if we're going to review it and look at it, we should do it forthwith.
Senator Martin: Building on what Senator Smith is saying, in the 21st century, I do see that television in the chamber is what Canadians would want and potentially expect. The only concern that I want to put on the record about that is anything taken out of context, if it's just a segment. I would want what is aired to be within the context of what we do and not just selected, whether it's by CPAC or someone, so that things are just pieced together rather than really reflecting what we do in the chamber. These are some of the concerns that come to mind.
The Chair: That's part of the concern that's been raised to me as well. It would be one thing for CPAC or someone else to come forward and say, "We will tape from 2:00 to closing on Tuesday, and we will play it from 9 p.m. to midnight on Tuesday night, in its entirety." Most people would welcome that, in fact, every day if they wish.
The concern that has been raised is that CPAC or others would come forward and say, "We will tape 25 minutes a week and we will show those 25 minutes a week," but it may not give a fulsome display of the dialogue, discussion and debate that takes place versus the one individual who stands up and speaks. It may not really give the public a good understanding of the work that goes into it.
I think we saw that in the fall when we were playing live on the web. You could listen to the debate. A lot of reporters in particular, but Canadians as well, talked about the fulsomeness of the debate and discussion, something they would say they've never heard in the other place, in fact. I think that type of thing would be helpful to us. It is not helpful to have piecemeal commentary as well.
Senator Cools: I tend to agree with Senator Smith and others who have said that all Senate proceedings should be broadcast. I've always believed that. Quite frankly, I've actively supported that position for a number of years. I don't think there's much doubt that the time has come to do such a study.
The problem that seems to be arriving right now is the width and the depth of what the study should be. If we will recall, some years ago, when we looked at the issues, we were doing that on the strength of a decision of the Senate as articulated in the vote on Senator Segal's motion. Perhaps we should try that possibility again. Perhaps a motion should be introduced in the Senate that would clearly outline what we call the terms of reference of the study so as to give the committee some guidance and to allow senators as a whole to put on the record and to include in the reference the conceptual framework for the study, rather than for us to be groping in the dark. There are limits to this committee's mandate in respect of taking its own initiative, which is what it is proposing to do now.
Perhaps, chairman, we might want to consider a discussion with the leaders on both sides, and perhaps out of that could come a motion on the floor of the house. Quite frankly, not to protect you, I think it would definitely buttress and fortify the study if it began with a mandate from the Senate.
The Chair: I don't disagree that at some point that will have to be sought. I think at this point, to be fair, at the meeting on February 24 we might hear, "We have no interest in showing any of what you do," which makes some of this at least a moot point unless someone else would like to pick that up.
Senator Cools: It is only a suggestion. I was hoping senators would look at it.
Senator Joyal: I think the point of Senator Cools is an opportune suggestion. If there is will on both sides, it should materialize formally at some point in time.
The other aspect I want to bring forward is the cost of all this. We can discuss, as you said, the metaphysical question, but at some point in time it's the one who pays who calls the tune. If there is an agreement on the part of the leadership to go to bat for the additional amount of money that would be requested, then that could be made part of our approach. I would not want to revisit this issue for the fourth time in less than 10 years and then, at the end of it, be told that there is no money for that this year. If we are embarking on this, there is a will to go for the additional money that would be requested, in my opinion.
The Chair: I agree.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Dear colleagues, I think that, as part of our mandate and that of the Internal Economy Committee, we have the authority to examine these issues so that when the Senate has to rule on substantive issues, it has a good understanding of these issues and does not have to deal with technical problems. What role will CPAC and the Internet have? How much will it cost? I think that it is our job to consider these things so that the Senate can make an informed decision when the time comes.
I have absolutely no problem with having a debate in the Senate. However, I do not think that the debate should be on these issues. The debate should be the conclusion of the process.
I remember that when Senator Segal moved his motion, a number of questions were raised and there were no answers. The so-called administrative committees were expected to be responsible for shedding some light on the debate, which is what we are doing now.
We all know that at the end of the day, the Senate will have to make a decision, but must ensure that we have looked at all of the issues associated with this debate.
[English]
The Chair: I would agree as well. I know in the last public meeting of Internal Economy, the dialogue was great surrounding the multiple costs and opportunities. For us right now, it is about doing some of that groundwork that has to be done to try to get our head around whether anyone is interested in the first place.
Senator D. Smith: To add to this, if we're striking this committee that we're talking about, that's good. We need clarity as to who has jurisdiction of what. When this matter was raised earlier, going back a few years, it was assumed that it would be the Rules Committee. We didn't get into the cost of it because we never had consensus on the issue in the first place. Obviously we weren't going to proceed with it if we didn't have consensus. As I say, it wasn't a government opposition thing as there was dissension within both caucuses. There was no consensus.
It seems, somewhat with the prompting and initiative of Speaker Kinsella, that Internal Economy is running with this at the moment. To the extent there are issues that would be within our jurisdiction, we want clarity and to get the committee struck. If he wants this to happen before he goes, and I know he does as he's been very forthright about it, we've got to get rolling; so there we are — a committee that clarifies what we have input on.
The Chair: I agree. The cost and technology seem to be at least part of the driver from Internal Economy, and we all understand the economic realities as well.
Multiple options have been provided multiple times as to how this could be done. This morning I was on the web watching a ski race from Russia. The quality was at least as good as what I have on TV. We've come a long way in providing this in a different way as well, so it's important for us to know that.
Do we have agreement to strike a subcommittee of this committee to look into the Rules portion of cameras in the Senate to know how that would look?
Senator Cools: Fine.
The Chair: Its purpose would be to walk through the Rules portion of this only. They could also engage a little better with Internal Economy — more clearly — about where their mandate is versus ours.
Senator Cools: How would that subcommittee be chosen?
The Chair: We are looking for volunteers, actually. We have to look for volunteers, senator.
Senator Cools: Chair, some discussion with the two leaders is required.
The Chair: Certainly, there has been discussion with our leadership on the Conservative side; and there has been discussion, I understand, with the deputy chair on the Liberal side.
Senator Cools: It would be nice if it were a little more formal. I love formality, just like I love records.
Senator D. Smith: I move that we strike a subcommittee of three members. I nominate as our representative on it, Senator Joyal, assuming he's willing. He's a saint and will rise to the occasion.
The Chair: I guess that's one.
Senator Joyal: I have a lot of personal difficulty with the concept of sainthood.
Senator D. Smith: Okay.
The Chair: I have a lot of difficulty with you being compared, but that's a different question.
Senator Joyal, do you accept?
Senator Joyal: I hope I'm not alone.
The Chair: No, you won't be alone. I'm sure Senator Unger would like to do that.
Senator Unger: No, I would like to nominate Senator Nolin.
The Chair: Another saint.
Senator Unger: Another saint.
Senator Cools: I always thought that the committee was constituted before choosing the membership. I thought that was the way to proceed. There's always a bit of eagerness, I know.
The Chair: Do we have agreement that we strike a subcommittee?
You moved the motion, thank you, Senator Jaffer, seconded by Senator Enverga. All in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We can move on. Senator Joyal's name has been put forward, and he has accepted, which I appreciate, and Senator Nolin has been nominated as well.
Senator Cools: The motion has to be put. You have to put motions to constitute membership.
Senator D. Smith: I move the motion.
The Chair: Thank you very much. All agreed?
Senator Cools: You guys may be smug in this slipshod practice, but I just don't like it.
The Chair: Seconder? Senator Jaffer, thank you very much. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Unger moved to the motion for Senator Nolin; seconder, Senator Batters. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: A third member of the subcommittee is needed.
Senator D. Smith: Do you want to be on it, chair?
The Chair: I would, actually.
Senator Joyal: I move Senator White.
The Chair: Seconder?
Senator Jaffer: Would the chair always be an ex officio member?
The Chair: Every subcommittee? Not necessarily, I understand.
I accept. Seconder, Senator Batters. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Joyal: I want to know the deadline. It's always good to accept the proposal to work, but I want to know the span of time so that we can adjust our respective responsibilities.
The Chair: I agree.
Senator Joyal: Other members will want to know, of course, when we will report.
Senator D. Smith: As soon as possible.
The Chair: I would suggest that prior to the break in March we at least bring something forward.
Senator Nolin: Soon.
The Chair: Is there any other business people would like to raise?
Senator Joyal: There's a concern of many senators around the table. The motion that Senator McCoy has put forward on the Order Paper calls upon the objective of considering a disciplinary procedure in respect of the Senate. There was a meeting between the Chair of Internal, the Chair of Rules and the Chair of Conflict of Interest in the previous session.
Has there been any progress or should we seek progress with that objective? We have a period of time ahead of us, and it would be appropriate to do that before the pressure of another report that might come forward and call upon disciplinary measures.
The Chair: That would be for the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Conflict of Interest Committee.
Senator Joyal: I am the deputy chair and cannot make any comment on the work of the committee at this stage, but the Conflict of Interest Committee has not received a specific mandate from the Senate to work on such a proposal and come back in a period of time with a specific objective. If there is to be some activity or progress, there should be agreement on both sides in terms of the result to achieve. Then, of course, the proper participation of the three committees could be put together.
Time goes by, and I'm concerned about progress on that.
The Chair: When is the next meeting of the Conflict of Interest Committee?
Senator Joyal: It's this afternoon. We have regular meetings because we are allowed to sit when the Senate is sitting. When you see Senator Andreychuk, Senator Cordy and me missing from the chamber, it's because we are at that meeting.
The Chair: Would you propose another meeting of the three? I know the chairs and the subcommittee meeting was very helpful.
Senator Joyal: It was helpful and that's why I raise it with you. I know you have that concern also, and I raise it to share with the members of the committee.
The Chair: I will ask the clerk to arrange a meeting of the chairs and deputy chairs of those committees. I agree that it was very helpful, and we all left with a better understanding.
Senator Joyal: It has to move on the basis of a common understanding. One committee cannot move without the other being involved.
Senator Cools: Will you ask for a motion to ask the clerk to arrange a meeting of the co-chairs and deputy chairs? It would be nice if we got the authority to do these things. It's not as arbitrary as we think.
The Chair: I'm not sure we need the authority for the three chairs and deputy chairs to meet. I have no issue with such a motion, however. Senator Cools, I have no concerns about having a motion if you would like to bring a motion forward.
Senator Cools: You have enough supporters.
Senator Nolin: Being a lawyer, I'm used to that because the courts have inherent authority.
Senator Cools: I know.
Senator Nolin: So you have inherent authority. You don't have to beg authority every time you want to walk and chew gum. You have inherent authority to do things; so that's it. I don't think you need a motion.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Nolin.
Senator Jaffer: Some of us on this committee are very new. I do not know if there is interest from other new members, but I know I could go to the clerk, as he's always been very helpful to me, for a formal orientation. It would help to know what the committee has done so that some of us who are new would not feel so new.
The Chair: That's a very good idea, senator. Thank you very much for that.
Further discussion? No other new business? Seeing none, thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)