Proceedings of the Special Committee
on
Senate Modernization
Issue No. 1 - Evidence - February 24, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 24, 2016
The Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization met this day, at 12 p.m., pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to hold an organization meeting.
[Translation]
Daniel Charbonneau, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of the committee, I have a duty to preside over the election of this committee's chair.
[English]
I am ready to receive a motion to that effect to choose a chair.
Senator Joyal: I would like to propose Senator McInnis.
Mr. Charbonneau: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Joyal that Senator McInnis do take the chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Senator McCoy: May I invite Senator Joyal to speak to his motion?
Mr. Charbonneau: Senator McCoy, under the practice of the Senate, this is a non-debatable motion, so I have to put the question.
Senator McCoy: There is no rule that says this is non-debatable. And if it is a non-debatable motion, then there's something wrong with our Rules. Excuse me.
Mr. Charbonneau: According to the Senate Procedure in Practice:
Committee clerks have no authority to preside over any element of committee business other than the election of the chair, so they cannot recognize any senators for the purpose of debate, nor may they hear nor rule on a point of order.
So I have to put the question. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Charbonneau: Carried.
I invite Senator McInnis to take the chair.
Senator McCoy: I wish to make a statement or a question of privilege or something.
Senator Tom McInnis (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Senator Joyal, for your vote of confidence.
Obviously, I am very humbled to be asked to be chair of this committee. It is not lost on me the talent that sits around the table. Any one of you, of course, is capable of doing this task.
I am delighted in the sense that some of the people around this table have already done considerable work on modernization of the Senate, Senate reform. I think it will be an interesting task. My task, as chair, will be to obtain from you all of your ideas and hopefully forge a consensus on a number of areas where we can modernize or reform the Senate.
I will have more to say about that in a moment, but we have a number of housekeeping items in order to get the committee up and running. The first has to do with the deputy chair, I believe.
Senator McCoy: Excuse me. May I raise a point?
Senator Eggleton: I was going to nominate somebody for deputy chair. I hear Elaine McCoy wants to say something.
Senator Cools: I think Senator McCoy has been trying to say something for the last few minutes.
Senator Eggleton: Whatever you want. If you want me to do my nomination —
The Chair: I would like for you to do your nomination.
Senator Eggleton: I'm pleased to nominate Serge Joyal to be the deputy chair of this committee, and I'm happy to give reasons any time you want.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Congratulations, Senator Joyal.
Senator Joyal: Thank you.
The Chair: The third item is the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Do I have a motion, a mover?
Senator Greene: Sure.
Senator Cools: There's nobody moving motions. You are having movers, but they're not — they have to move it. They have to say the words. They have to say: I move that this and this and that happen.
Senator Greene: I move:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda of Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
Senator McCoy: On this, I wish to move an amendment.
Senator Cools: He hasn't called for debate, but he should be calling for debate.
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
Senator McCoy: Let me say in discussion that for this committee to be looking at new and better ways for the Senate to conduct itself, in the spirit of effective representation of the people of Canada — modernization being in the very name and transparency being one of the characteristics of the remodelled Senate that we have all ascribed to — that to behave in this autocratic fashion does not augur well for any true commitment to reformation.
I will table in French and in English an article that was in The Hill Times this Monday, two days ago, the headline of which in English says "Senate Modernization Committee formed, chairman Sen. McInnis chosen without election.'' I myself was informed personally by Senator Carignan, the head of the Conservative caucus, that this indeed was going to happen.
That is not democratic and it is not what a goodly number of senators have already indicated, through the workshop that Senators Massicotte and Greene conducted last October, wish to have happen.
So I want the record to show that although I have — this is not a personal comment. I have not worked personally with you, Senator McInnis, and I asked others whom I do know better in the Senate about you. They assured me that you have the usual delightful characteristics of a senator from Atlantic Canada, that you have a great sense of humour, a sense of fairness and a commitment, as all Atlantic Canadians do, to Confederation. I take that as a given.
This is not a personal comment, but it is a comment on process and what we hope to be in the future. If this committee does not model the behaviour that we hope to have take place in the future, then I think we are doing not only ourselves but our country a disservice.
I wish to make a motion in amendment on the motion so that the motion read, in the first paragraph, deleting the words "designated after the usual consultation'' to be replaced by the words "a non-partisan, independent senator.'' So that the first paragraph of the motion would read in full:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and one other member of the committee, to be a non-partisan, independent senator; and ....
Senator Greene: I thank you for that. I certainly understand the spirit in which you speak and agree with the spirit in which you speak.
For the purposes of getting on with the reform agenda and for the purposes of this committee, I prefer to look at this committee as not an example of modernization but rather an example of the old way. So I am prepared to close my eyes to where we are now and how we set things up in the hopes that we can move toward recommendations where a committee that was structured along these lines won't happen in the future.
Senator Eggleton: I am going to support Senator McCoy's motion. We need to start heading in a different direction. It is a logical thing when you have three people, and we have got two representatives who are considered independent. We will have many more people who will be considered independent coming down the road, so the government tells us. So I think this is a good time to show that gesture, and I hope Senator McCoy herself would serve in that capacity, and I certainly support her amendment.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I am in agreement with the way we need to go. For us to change the procedure that is in place now for a new procedure, that's what this committee was formed to do — to sit and discuss exactly how committee chairs should be elected, not to arbitrarily do it straight off the get-go, but to actually formulate opinions on how it should happen and the composition. All of those things are why this committee was struck.
I can't support your motion now, but I certainly support a discussion on this motion and everything that we need to do to modernize the Senate.
Senator Joyal: First of all, we have to recognize that, as Senator Stewart Olsen has mentioned, the very presence as full members of this committee of two independent senators is certainly a reflection that independent senators have a role and responsibility to play on an equal footing with any other senators on an individual basis.
One purpose of this committee is to study how we should amend the Rules, if there is a need to amend the Rules, to better reflect the participation of independent senators.
To answer your question, Senator McCoy, there is no mystery as to why I proposed Senator McInnis. It was made in the usual way of consultation between the parties that are represented in the Senate.
As you know, there is the official opposition party and there is a third party who happens to be the Liberal independent party. The usual consultation takes place according to the Rules of the Senate that provide for the Selection Committee to report on the composition of membership of the committee and offer the committee to come forward with consultation so a consensus is established that a person should be identified as chair and another one as deputy chair in order to facilitate the conviviality of the operation of the committee.
There is no doubt that if it is one of the recommendations of this committee in the future that the Rules of the Senate be changed, and I think around the table there is a reflection of openness to do that, we should act accordingly. The Senate will hear that recommendation and decide, on its wisdom, to give effect to that recommendation.
At this stage, everything was done according to how it was before. One of the reasons this committee is being formed is to part with some practice we had in the past that no longer reflects the new condition. That explains exactly where we are today. I think there is movement in that direction, and we have to take it one step at a time.
I understand the concern you have expressed, which is certainly fair; on the other hand, we more or less accept that we will work on the basis of the practice that has already been the one in the organization of a committee.
Senator Cools: I would like to express support for Senator McCoy's amendment. There is more to that amendment and it is more important than immediately meets the eye.
I am very well informed of the ways that we have done things in the past, and I have no real quarrel with those, except I hear this drum beat that we should do things differently. When I hear a beat, I tend to think that the beat is in motion and that we have to respond to it.
This particular subcommittee, usually called a steering committee, is unique. It usually is constituted by two members of the government party — three, and two being members of one party, to make sure that the subcommittee can just bring forth what the government of the day wants.
In this instance, we have a freer hand because the chairman of the committee is not a member of the government party. He may be a member of the largest party, but not the government party. We do not have to worry about the government business dominating, but we certainly have to worry about the opposition's business dominating.
I have no problem with any of these things, but I would like to say to you in a very special way, Senator McInnis, that this subcommittee is very important. One of the reasons I'm supporting Senator McCoy is if you look to the second part of the motion, it makes it quite clear. It says:
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
I have served on many committees where it is virtually impossible for a member of the committee to hear from a witness because of this subcommittee.
With all due respect to the clerk of the committee, Mr. Charbonneau, the practice for years was that the subcommittee does not make decisions. It makes recommendations to the committee because these are all delegated authorities. This committee is a delegated authority from the Senate and the subcommittee is a delegated authority from the committee, so they cannot make decisions. They bring recommendations to the committee as a whole. This bad habit or malpractice has become and has been declared by many to be a practice.
I sat on scores of committees and on these subcommittees where we used to come to the wider committee with a report where we said we recommend that we hear certain witnesses, and the committee would come back and say they want those and those and these. I have sat on committees where you can't get anything done because that subcommittee is keeping such a tight control on who is called as a witness and who is not.
So I think this is a perfectly good place to begin opening up that process because the presence of an independent such as Senator McCoy would at least equalize and balance out the fact that there is one party, another party, and then a no-party person.
I think Senator McCoy's suggestion is a fine one. It is timely and we really should give it very serious thought.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I tend to agree with Senator Eggleton, and I will be consistent with my vision of the Senate reform. I think we should officially include the independent senators who are here, but also those who will join us in the future. I think that, according to the proposal — if I have understood Senator McCoy's amendment properly — we would have Senator McInnis as chair, Senator Joyal as deputy chair, and the third member of the steering committee would be independent. Did I understand correctly?
Senator Massicotte: Including independent Liberals.
Senator Bellemare: Yes, independent Liberals. I don't think it can be defined that way. In my opinion, an independent has no affiliation. To stay true to my own logic, I will support Senator McCoy's proposal.
[English]
Senator Cools: When Senator McCoy said "independent,'' I thought she used the words "independent'' and "non- partisan,'' but maybe I'm wrong.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: If I may add a comment, I met with Senators Greene and Massicotte to discuss modernization, and some independent senators joined us. The exercise went really, really well. I think that, if we want to set a tone of openness, I am not at all against the steering committee including an individual who is not a Conservative or a Liberal, as that would help us think outside the box. That is why I believe it would be a good way to proceed.
[English]
Senator Wells: I want to say that I have confidence that whoever may be on the steering committee will act in the best interests of the objective of this committee. I have full confidence in that, whoever around the room it might be.
Second, it is not necessary to put the cart before the horse. This Committee on Modernization was struck to consider various suggestions and options put forth by a number of people, groups, and I think that we need to do that.
On the face of it, some of the suggestions might seem easy and obvious, but part of our job as senators is to give sober thought to these, consider the ramifications, and not put it through just because it appears to be the right thing to do at first blush.
Senator Cools: You could say that about the creation of this committee. You could say the Rules Committee was perfectly capable of doing anything that this committee is setting out to do. If we adopt that attitude, there would never be a Senate Modernization Committee.
The Chair: Ready for the question? Is it your pleasure to adopt the amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator McCoy: Is this a recorded vote?
The Chair: If you wish it to be, absolutely.
Senator Cools: Do a roll call.
Senator McCoy: Then do a roll call, please.
Mr. Charbonneau: I will call the names of the senators in alphabetical order, starting with the chair. Please answer by saying yea, nay or abstention.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: Nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Bellemare?
Senator Bellemare: Yea.
[English]
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Cools?
Senator Cools: Yea.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.?
Senator Eggleton: Yea.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Greene?
Senator Greene: Nay, with reservations.
[Translation]
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Joyal?
Senator Joyal: Nay.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: Yea.
[English]
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator McIntyre?
Senator McIntyre: Yea.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator McCoy?
Senator McCoy: Yea.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yea.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Tardif?
Senator Tardif: Yea.
[English]
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: Nay.
Mr. Charbonneau: Yeas 8, nays 5.
Senator McCoy: Thank you.
The Chair: The motion is adopted.
Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion, as amended?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: I was going to nominate Senator McCoy to be that independent person.
Senator Cools: I would second that. Senator Eggleton is moving to fill the third position on the committee.
The Chair: Is there any discussion? All those in favour?
Senator Cools: This is the second part of the motion, right? We are still on Motion 3.
Senator McCoy: We're on the main motion, as amended?
The Chair: As amended.
Senator Cools: The first part was amended. Now we're looking at the second part of the motion. The part of the motion that my attention is currently focused on:
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
I would like to move "to make recommendations on behalf of the committee'' —
Senator Massicotte: It is "to the committee.''
Senator Cools: — "to the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.''
Colleagues, I tell you that you will discover how important that is in respect of keeping a balance and a sense of fairness in how we manage the committee and in how we study the subject matter. This is a very large and important subject matter.
Senator Tardif: Point of order.
I believe that we have adopted the motion already; so the second part of that motion is integral to the entire motion we have adopted.
Senator Greene: It is, yes.
Senator Cools: If we adopted it, I don't think senators were aware of exactly what they were voting on. I do not find it acceptable just to say that because there was an oversight, just close the door.
The spirit is that most senators thought they were voting on the proposals —
The Chair: To have an independent?
Senator Cools: Respecting that. I do not think when the motion was moved the second part of the motion was read at all by the person moving the motion.
I don't think it was put before us to a vote.
Senator Eggleton: I was going to suggest a compromise. As one who has been involved in these processes for some period of time as the chair or deputy chair of a committee, in the initial instance a work plan needs to be developed. The work plan would indicate witnesses that would come in on the different subject matters.
There is also a practical issue. Some people end up not making it, and you have to go to a backup list, an alternate, and going back and forth between the committee and the subcommittee can be very difficult to do. It is not a very practical thing to do.
Maybe in the first instance, the work plan would be presented, and that would be the first crack and opportunity to influence the witness list. Beyond that, leave it to the subcommittee to do replacements.
Senator Cools: That's one aspect of our work — replacements. I do not see that as a daunting problem.
What I am trying to say is that it is important that the entire committee be involved in the whole business of deciding the work plan and all of those issues. I thought it would be a good way to proceed and it would be a clearer way, because the subcommittee would always be apprised of the fact that it is in the service of the larger committee; so the subcommittee is never acting on its own behalf.
I don't know how or why these practices have disappeared, but the fact that the subcommittee should always bring its recommendations to the committee was not a matter that was in doubt until the last few years.
Senator Joyal: I tend to share the views expressed by Senator Eggleton. As he has mentioned, the planning of the work of the committee is always susceptible to be the object of a proposal by any member of the committee to invite another witness or to extend the sittings, provided we respect the time allocation that has been determined by the sitting of other committees.
It seems to me that any member of the committee always has the opportunity to come forward and propose a different course of action or add to the list of witnesses and or documents or anything that that senator might want the committee to consider.
I feel that the proposal as it is now is flexible. But if we are to suspend the invitation of a witness — which in most cases will be experts or people with experience of the Senate, since the subject is the renewal of the institution — it might be difficult to get those people on time.
If we have to come back to the committee each time this person is not available on this date but will be available later on to have that authorization — I'm looking at the calendar in front of me. We have only seven meetings up to June 1, which is our order of reference. If we have only seven meetings and we want to achieve a result, we are condemned to efficiency to a point.
Since there is an independent senator on the steering committee now, that senator, if he or she wants to propose anything in terms of the agenda, additional witnesses or additional documentation, will have all the freedom to do it.
I feel that the motion as it is labelled is sufficiently flexible to allow the input that the proposer wants to bring forward to our attention.
The Chair: This committee is somewhat unique. It is not an adversarial committee. This committee, I would think, is of one mind. Many of you came to the committee voluntarily. You wanted to be part of seeing the Senate modernize.
Keeping that in mind, I don't think we should try to determine that we're going to somehow negate to bring in pertinent witnesses. In fact, in an informal fashion — without knowing that I was going to be chair but believing that it might be possible — we have worked on a work plan. You are going to be presented with a work plan for your review. When you do that, if you have any suggestions or if we have missed anything, we want you to come forward.
A tremendous amount of work has already been completed, and that has been endorsed in the work plan. That is not to say that it is not going to be discussed. Every aspect of the Greene-Massicotte report, Senator Joyal's report and all the other reports will all be discussed in detail. However, we do have a time restraint.
Senator Cools: Chairman, did I understand you to say that a large amount of the committee's work is already completed? That's what I heard you say.
The Chair: Just a second. You didn't hear the last part. The fact is a lot of work has been done, whether it be in conferences, or whatever, which we will be able to draw on.
Senator Cools: Oh, that's quite different.
The Chair: That's exactly what it is. You will see that in the work plan.
I will not be chair if we're going to prevent people from hearing all aspects of it, except to say this: As Senator Joyal pointed out, we have seven meetings. We're not held to that. If necessary, we can meet on days off; we can meet during the week, whatever. After the first three or four meetings, the steering committee will look at where we are with respect to our global work plan and then we will deal with it. That's how we're intending to do it.
I believe that there will be a consensus, working together as a committee, as to which witnesses, presenters and areas we're going to cover. After we adopt that plan, you have to be mindful of the fact that if you come up with new green- field ideas that no one has talked about much, you may be talking about a phase 2.
Let's not get into this now.
Senator Cools: I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I was saying. I'm quite aware of the difficulties for any group, or committee, or any body, with just making decisions and having things happen. That's not my concern. I'm not suspicious of dishonesty, corruption or anything like that. I just believe that every motion should uphold the principles by which the motions are governed. The principle has always been that the work of the subcommittee is a delegated one to which they answer to the committee.
I thought it would be useful that that motion reflect the principle that the subcommittee is in fact presenting recommendations at all times to the committee, and it should not act, believe or use language that says otherwise. All I was trying to show is that the language of that motion is not consistent with the intention of the existence of the subcommittee. That's all I was showing, just a basic parliamentary principle that should be employed and reflected in the draft of the motion.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor from Senator Eggleton that Senator McCoy be the third member of the committee. All those in favour signify by saying "yea.''
Hon. Senators: Yea.
Senator McCoy: Thank you.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee.
Now we will move on to the next item, "Motion to publish the committee's proceedings.'' May I have a mover?
Senator Greene: I so move.
Senator Cools: Are we talking about regular proceedings or a report at the end?
Mr. Charbonneau: It is the publishing of the transcript of these regular meetings.
Senator Cools: It is not clear. Okay, that's good. Thanks. It is not unusual that you can have in here, in this body, a motion to publish proceedings at the end of the committee.
The Chair: Senator Greene has so moved. All those in favour please say "yea?''
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Contrary minded, please say "nay''?
Carried.
Next is No. 5, "Authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present.'' Could I have a mover, please?
Senator Tardif: I move that:
Pursuant to rule 12-17, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that one member of the committee representing the opposition and one member representing the Senate Liberals be present.
Senator McCoy: On debate, with respect.
Senator Eggleton: One independent?
Senator McCoy: Could we add "and one independent''? Then we would have a triumvirate. Three people would be a quorum?
Senator Stewart Olsen: There are only two of you here.
Senator McCoy: Why don't we say "and, if possible''?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I could live with that.
Senator Cools: Or "when possible.''
Senator McCoy: Or "when possible.'' That's practical.
The Chair: You have heard Senator McCoy's motion in amendment.
All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Motion carried.
Now the full motion, as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next is "Research staff.''
Senator Massicotte: I will move:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee; and ....
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and —
Senator Cools: I'm having difficulty hearing you.
Senator Massicotte: You can actually read it.
Senator Cools: Maybe so, but it has to be moved into the record.
Senator Eggleton: It is all there in writing. Can't I say dispense?
Senator Cools: No. You can't say "dispense'' once it's been read into the record once.
Senator Massicotte: Okay. I will continue:
That the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it;
[Translation]
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee;
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
[English]
Senator Cools: Is this committee expecting to be considering bills?
Senator Joyal: It is possible.
Senator Cools: Because this is the routine motion that comes for committees that do study bills.
The Chair: It is open.
Senator Joyal: For instance, the bill introduced by Senator Mercer, as you know, on the election of the Speaker is —
Senator Cools: I think it should go to Rules.
Senator Joyal: May I finish senator without being interrupted?
Senator Cools: Absolutely. Go ahead.
Senator Joyal: I think that bill is on the floor of the Senate for second reading. If it is the wisdom of the Senate to refer that bill to this committee, because it is an important subject of renewal of the Senate, I don't see why we could not consider that bill. That's how I see it.
Senator Cools: I have no problem with it.
Senator Joyal: That's why I am open to the issue of receiving bills.
Senator Cools: So am I very open.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Next is "Authority to commit funds and certify accounts.''
Senator Joyal: I move:
That pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
The Chair: All those in favour please signify by saying "yea.''
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Motion carried.
Next is "Travel.'' Motion?
Senator Greene: I move:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Next is "Designation of members travelling on committee business.''
Senator Eggleton: I move:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on "official business'' for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee to be on "official business'' if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, she made a point that you might have missed.
Senator McCoy: It was an aside, chair, to my colleague. This is the way the standard motion used to read: "That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken to the whole committee.'' It is the delegation tradition.
The Chair: Next on our agenda is "Travelling and living expenses of witnesses.''
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I move:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Dissemination.
Senator Bellemare: I move:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the committee's public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings at its discretion.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
The Chair: Time slot for regular meetings is at 12 noon on Wednesdays. It is not the best time, but —
Senator Massicotte: It's the only time.
The Chair: — it is the only time.
Senator McCoy: Is the duration expected to be one hour?
The Chair: Two hours.
Senator Eggleton: That's assuming the Senate will not meet at 1:30.
Senator Massicotte: I thought we had the right to meet.
Senator Cools: You have to seek that. You have to get that in the chamber. It could be had.
The Chair: The next motion, the one that's been circulated, regards staff and reads:
That each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings, unless there is a decision for a particular meeting to exclude all staff.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Olsen moves.
Senator Cools: We should have some debate on that motion. "In camera'' used to mean senators only, and it has now been modified to mean senators and staff.
The Chair: One per person, yes.
Senator Cools: I agree, but "in camera'' should mean no staff. If you decide to allow staff, then you make a decision to that effect. The practice used to be —
Senator Massicotte: The resolution can be whatever we agree.
Senator Cools: No, it is not. You are saying there's a routine that there is one staff present per person.
The Chair: Unless there is a decision for a particular meeting to exclude all staff.
Senator Cools: You are putting in the opposite. You are making what should be the rule the exception, but that's okay. You are turning logic on its head, but I understand it.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Perhaps we could go in camera to deal with the rest of the items.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)