Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing
Rules and Orders
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 4, 1997
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 2:10 p.m. to consider the Report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedures.
Senator Shirley Maheu (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have a quorum.
The subcommittee, or, as we call it, the steering committee, met last Tuesday, October 28, to review the items as listed in the report. Senator Bosa and I were there and Senator Rossiter was there representing our deputy chairman.
The first proposal that we looked at was for the proposed new rules for joint committees. At the instigation of Senator Robertson, an informal working group was set up composed of representatives of the Senate Rules Committee and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That began in 1995. At the end of the discussions, it was requested that a working group be set up to prepare draft wording for amendments to both the Senate and the House rules on joint committees. That was not completed during the last session of Parliament because of the election break.
Following on the agreement of our subcommittee, I wrote a letter to Peter Adams, the member of Parliament responsible for the committee in the other place. I asked whether the House committee was interested in pursuing the establishment of a common set of rules for joint committees. I have attached a copy of the letter.
Senator Robertson: That joint working group was set up at the direction of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders. Quite a few staff were involved with staff from the House of Commons, and they had already accomplished quite a bit when the interruption occurred. It should not be a difficult job to resurrect those accomplishments.
I hope Mr. Adams responds in a favourable way. A lot of dissatisfaction has been expressed over the years with the functioning of the joint committees. It will be interesting to see what Mr. Adams has to say in this regard.
The Chairman: I agree with you, especially as regards the function of joint committees. We are hearing some rumblings.
Senator Grimard: I would say about 85 per cent of the job was completed; perhaps even more than that. At the last meeting, the clerks of both houses were supposed to meet just to check a few items.
The Chairman: Hopefully, Mr. Adams will get back to me this week; he is usually prompt. If not, I will phone and ensure that we get a good response.
Is it agreed that we resurrect this committee providing that the House of Commons agrees?
Senator Robertson: Do you need a motion?
The Chairman: We will come back for recommendations on members of the committee. Would you make such a motion?
Senator Pearson: I so move, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. The second item on our agenda is the restructuring of Senate committees. In September, as noted in the minutes of our meeting, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration circulated a document to all senators. It was entitled, "Reforming the Senate's Sitting Schedule and Restructuring committees." The subcommittee reviewed the report at that time.
The subcommittee notes that the question of restructuring Senate committees has been an agenda item of this committee for quite some time. In June 1994, the Rules Committee adopted a motion that the committee study the existing committee structure of the Senate, including select and joint committees, and that the committee suggest changes concerning the number of members sitting on each committee, and their replacements, on a full-time or a part-time basis.
The committee was to examine the possibility of reducing committee sizes to see if they would function better. There would be more committees, but each would have fewer members, I believe.
The steering committee recommends that the Rules Committee examine two related questions: Should the size of Senate committees be reduced to a smaller number, for example, nine senators? Should independent senators be members or associate members of committees or subcommittees?
This item is open for discussion as well.
Senator Robertson: Madam Chairman, it would be wise to revisit these two issues. Both are contentious; I am not sure which is the more contentious. We should seek solutions on which our caucus members can agree. We did not get very far last time. It would be worthwhile to have another attempt, and I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that we reopen this matter and go into an in-depth study of the situation or the possibilities? I do not see a consensus right now. Perhaps we will not find a consensus, but we must look at it.
Senator Milne: We definitely must look at this problem, not only with a view to either reducing the number of committees and increasing the membership or increasing committee numbers and reducing the membership, but with a view to seeing what the effects would be, first, on scheduling and then on the workload of the senators serving on the committees.
The Chairman: We will endeavour to put that on the agenda of a forthcoming committee meeting.
We will move then to recommendation number three, another contentious issue. On May 10, 1992, following the adoption by the Senate of a report of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders, the Clerk of the Senate was charged with the responsibility of maintaining a public attendance register of all senators.
This register provides basic information about the presence of senators at sittings of the Senate and meetings of the committees. It has been over five years since this register was established and it is appropriate to review this provision. The steering committee recommends that the chairman, and other senators selected by the chairman, be authorized to work with the Clerk of the Senate to review this issue and to return to the committee with a report.
It is pretty straightforward. We need to look at this. Recent publicity has been damaging. I do not know about all the provinces, but certainly in our province it was given a lot of coverage. If not in the media, it was discussed by the ordinary people and the groups with whom we meet.
The problem in part was that the figures were not right. Some of the newer senators were not aware that they had to phone in if there were special reasons which prevented them from attending a sitting of the Senate. Of course, the new secretaries were not all advised that it was part of their job to ensure that the Clerk was advised when their senator had a legitimate reason for being away.
Senator Petten: It has to be in written form. You must write a letter.
The Chairman: The education of new senators and their staff was incomplete. Several senators were not aware of the requirement.
Senator Petten: Is there not a loose-leaf book sent to each new senator about the services that are available and what is required? If that book is still being sent out, then I would ask what that book says on this matter.
Senator Grimard: Is there any register like that in the other place?
The Chairman: Members of Parliament are on their honour. They fill out a form once a month. Around the table, I was the only person who had served in the House of Commons prior to coming here, so it was suggested that I should sit with the clerk and a few members around this table. Personally, I find it annoying that we accept as honourable the word of a member of Parliament and yet a member of the Upper House cannot make the same type of submission. I find that hard to deal with.
Senator Robertson: Remember, Madam Chairman, we are all members of Parliament.
The Chairman: I apologize. I meant to compare members of the House of Commons with members of the Upper Chamber.
Senator Robertson: I would personally like to see a committee struck. We must act on this. Changes are needed here. I was going to suggest that we move into a closed committee this afternoon, but I will not. We can strike this committee. I am 68 years of age. My mother used to called my school when I was absent, and her word was always accepted. This is a bit much. We should take a strong look at this. There are other methods that can be used to curb delinquent members who are abusing their privileges. Not all senators should be dragged in with those delinquent members.
I move that some sort of committee, as you would choose, should be struck. We should get at this issue as soon as possible.
The Chairman: My comments will wait until we are in camera.
Senator Robertson: My further comments will also wait.
Senator Milne: I agree with everything said by Senator Robertson. It is essential to examine this. I would add a caution: the committee should keep in mind the perception right now of stopping the taking of attendance. This is not the right time. There are perceptions out there. There is a public concern out there. We should keep that in mind.
The Chairman: No one is suggesting that we stop taking attendance.
Senator Petten: Did I get an answer from Dr. O'Brien as to whether these loose-leaf booklets include instructions on attendance for new senators? They should know about this when they come to this place. When I arrived I got a phone book and was told to put it together, and that was it. However, in the past few years, we have been sending out a booklet explaining the various services and responsibilities, have we not?
Dr. Gary O'Brien, Principal Clerk, Committees Branch: You are referring to the Senators' handbook. That book has not been discussed for a few years. Perhaps this is the opportunity to do that as well.
The Chairman: Is this handbook produced by the office of the Clerk of the Senate?
Mr. O'Brien: I believe it is. The Senate communications department also has a role in obtaining that.
Senator Bosa: Madam Chairman, I am not sure that the interventions made previously by Senators Robertson and Milne really reflect what is behind item three. You spoke of an attendance register for senators; I believe you mean doing away with registering the attendance of senators.
The Chairman: No.
Senator Robertson: That is not necessary, no.
Senator Bosa: I would like to have an explanation, because it seems to me that that is what was meant. You have even prefaced your remarks by saying that, in the other place, they go on an honour system. If members say they have attended all month or that they have been away on public business, then that is not challenged but is accepted.
The Chairman: It is a written report.
Senator Bosa: Is attendance in the Senate not marked by somebody else and kept in the clerk's office? Could you elaborate on this subject? You say in the report that this system has been in place for the past five years. Are you looking into adopting a system similar to that in the House of Commons?
The Chairman: First of all, the subcommittee, as such, is not in a position to suggest the abolishment of something; it is up to the full committee. There is no question of stopping attendance records at all. A change may be required in the way we collect the information.
Senator Bosa: I was more inclined to interpret what had been said in the past, not only by the subcommittee which met last week but also by other senators in some of their comments, as saying that we should strike a committee and police our own group rather than, as Senator Robertson suggested a moment ago, be dragged through the papers and try to defend a situation in which we had no part.
Senator Robertson: It seems to me there is a variety of models. It would seem appropriate for a subcommittee to look at these models and come back with a suggestion of which method would work best for the Senate. Until we have an in-depth interpretation of our options, it would be difficult to make any comment as to direction.
Attendance must be reviewed with a degree of depth so that we understand what we are talking about. I am certainly not inferring any direction at this particular time. However, the issue should be studied thoroughly.
Senator Bosa: If that is the case, then, perhaps we should be a little more explicit in the structuring of the committee and the terms of reference that the subcommittee should have.
For instance, with respect to attendance, we all know that there are some perennial delinquents, and some action should be taken in regard to those senators. Will the committee investigate the blatant abuses that are written about in the papers?
The Chairman: I would not attempt to speak on behalf of a subcommittee that will be struck to look at the attendance issue. There is probably no one in the Senate who is willing to attack colleagues on their attendance, regardless of how we must look at it ourselves.
Senator Robertson: Madam Chairman, with respect, I am suggesting that a subcommittee be struck to explore and study all the options, not only in regard to attendance of senators but with respect to other issues that relate to the attendance, the general work, and the responsibilities of senators.
This committee should look at all the models. Let us not go into this with a closed mind; let us look at this whole area of concern. I certainly do not think it should be driven by the fact that the press got into a snit. We must make this a healthier place to work.
Senator Pearson: I am not sure what is within the purview of this committee to review. However, there may be ways to address this problem in a more constructive manner.
Senator Bosa: Would the steering committee be dealing with this? Would the subcommittee be made up of the steering committee?
Senator Robertson: I have asked that a separate committee be struck, senator, in my motion. That is what I have asked for.
Senator Bosa: Are you going to name someone?
Senator Robertson: It is up to the chairman. I will volunteer. I should like to work on the committee.
The Chairman: Are there any other suggestions with regard to item number three on the agenda?
Senator Pearson: Is this a motion?
The Chairman: Motion by Senator Robertson, seconded by Senator Pearson.
It is important that we look at number four on the agenda as quickly as possible if we are going to be facing many more constitutional amendments. Rule 37(3) states:
The sponsor of a bill and the first Senator speaking immediately thereafter shall be permitted... forty-five minutes each for debate ...
We noted that in debates such as those dealing with constitutional amendments, senators other than the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition are restricted to 15 minutes. We felt that the general issue of fairness of time limits on speeches should be examined.
The concern here is more with debate on constitutional amendments rather than with simply any amendment or motion that comes before the Senate.
Senator Robertson: Did we not have a temporary resolution the other day, when Senator Kinsella raised the question?
Senator Grimard: With respect, it would be a mistake to start making exemptions. We have a good set of rules now. When the new rules were approved, our caucus often asked if we could live with the new rules in opposition. Now we are in the opposition, and we can live with those rules.
Rule 3 gives significant power to the Senate. Things are now going smoothly. When a senator speaks, he is to speak on the subject; he is not to tell stories. When the Speaker asks if permission is granted for the senator to continue, the senator is usually granted that permission.
If you start to make constant revisions, the process will never stop. The current rules are good.
The Chairman: Are you saying that having no rules is beneficial?
Senator Grimard: You are in the majority and you live with those rules. I do not believe any senator has been refused permission to continue to speak when he or she was actually on the topic.
The Chairman: Senator Milne was refused.
Senator Grimard: The same thing happened with the next item, tributes. I know sometimes there are too many tributes, but it does depend on who died. When we arrive at that item, I will give you my opinion, but we should think twice before changing that, because of Rule 3.
Senator Petten: I agree partially with my colleague. When we give a senator leave to continue after the 15 minutes provided in the rules and he or she continues for another 15 or 20 minutes, I think that is overdoing it. I agree that we should not just chop somebody off after 15 minutes without giving him or her the opportunity to conclude, but perhaps we should say, when the senator is given leave, that it is on the understanding that it will be for just another five minutes. That is all I have to say.
Senator Robertson: If we gave them an additional five minutes, then they would just ask for leave again and senators would most likely agree.
The Chairman: That is why I say there are no rules.
Senator Robertson: There are rules, but it seems that the Senate has nothing to do but agree to listen on and on, when in fact all they have to do is say no.
Senator Petten: The Speaker should be able to say, "That is your 15 minutes or ten minutes."
Senator Robertson: The Speaker does not have the authority. The senator will just go to the assembly.
Senator Petten: That is the way I feel about it. I still think we should be able to look at it somehow, because some of our colleagues tend to go on and on. I am not talking about my colleagues present.
Senator Robertson: Just say no, Senator Petten.
Senator Milne: I was cut off once.
The Chairman: This discussion is meant to include constitutional amendments. Actually, the request came from the opposition. I hesitate to ignore the request. I do not think we should ignore the request no matter where it originates. What is your opinion on constitutional amendments? They are very rare; we have not had too many requests and I doubt if there have been many during the last few sessions of Parliament, but do you think that even then we should not allow longer time?
Senator Bosa: Last fall, I believe, Senator Doody asked to speak longer and I think he was granted permission.
The Chairman: We never refuse permission.
Senator Milne: We do.
Senator Grimard: You have to take into consideration whether it is directly or indirectly a constitutional speech. It is a touchy subject. "Constitution" is a big word and it covers a lot.
Senator Robertson: I tend to agree with Senator Grimard on this.
The Chairman: There was a suggestion that we put it on our agenda. If you would rather not, I am open to that.
Senator Rossiter: Perhaps we should take a look at the discussion that went on in the chamber on Thursday last.
Senator Milne: Put it on the agenda for the next meeting.
Senator Robertson: You can always ask to waive the rule. As someone said, we do not deal with constitutional issues every day. As soon as you start changing the rules, where do you stop? Then you get going on about all kinds of things that do not even relate to the issue.
The Chairman: I was being facetious when I said we do not have any rules, but it is extremely rare that the Senate does not grant permission to bend or break the rules. It happens at every single sitting of the Senate. Very seldom is a senator cut off and not granted leave to continue. Do we leave it on the agenda for the next meeting, at which time we will try to handle it?
Senator Milne: Yes, and we should come back with precisely what was said in the Senate.
Senator Rossiter: Yes. I think that would be the best idea.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Now we come to the tributes. The committee felt that the issue of establishing certain guidelines concerning senators paying tribute to other persons should be examined.
Senator Grimard: What do you mean by "other persons"?
The Chairman: Persons other than senators.
Senator Grimard: Other than senators. If a senator died, that does not apply?
The Chairman: It may be someone else from your district, for example.
Senator Grimard: Again, you are opening a can of worms. Let us say that Mr. Trudeau died. I give that just as an example; I do not want him to die. What would happen? If we decide there should only be one speaker from each party, do you think it would be fair to Mr. Trudeau? I understand that sometimes we go too far with the tributes to strangers in paradise, who are not members of our group, but not very often.
Senator Robertson: I think I was responsible for asking this to be put on the agenda. It was not just the issue of senators paying tribute to other persons that I was talking about; it was tributes to retiring senators as well. I think we have to look at the whole issue of tributes. There must be a better way of spending an afternoon. I never heard of such things as go on in the chamber.
I would like to have this whole issue examined. Perhaps other senators think it is fine to go on and on. If you cannot say something nice about me when I am alive, then forget it when I am gone. It seems silly.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments?
Senator Bosa: There have been times when someone has gone overboard, but it has not been abused too much. When a senator retires or dies, there are friendships that have been established over many years, and one wants to say a few words so that Hansard can be sent to the family of the retiring senator or the senator who has passed away. It is a nice souvenir for them, a nice remembrance. I do not see much problem with that. When you restrict it, it becomes a question of selecting. I think that is much more difficult than allowing a free-for-all.
Senator Petten: I agree with my colleague Senator Bosa. It does not happen that often and it does not go on too long. Sometimes, I will admit, we get carried away, but not normally.
Senator Doyle: The only person I have seen who was frightened by tributes was Royce Frith. During the tributes to Martha Bielish he took his party out of the Senate, but I think that is the only time in all the years I have been here that we had someone who was frightened by tributes, who thought they were going on too long.
The Chairman: You will have to tell me about it at some point.
Senator Doyle: I will. It is a long story.
Senator Robertson: I would like to take this issue back to our caucus and have a discussion there. I am tired of people complaining to me and then not wanting to do anything about it when you start asking questions. They complain and complain that they must spend an afternoon listening to repetitions, and then they back away from it from time to time. I would like to have the opportunity to return to this issue. I would like to discuss it with caucus.
Senator Bosa: We will do the same thing.
The Chairman: Is there a consensus that we take it to our caucuses?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Milne: I have one question. From a practical point of view, how can you stop any senator from saying anything he or she wants?
The Chairman: Since we have reached item number five on the agenda and have agreed to take it back to our caucuses, are there any other items that senators who were not at the steering committee meeting would like to see covered in the near future?
Senator Bosa: After we adjourn today, when do you think the committee will meet again? Will we wait for the subcommittee to be formed, study the matter, and then report back before we have a meeting?
The Chairman: Logically, we cannot meet until after the break. It would be the end of November.
Senator Pearson: I have a vested interest in looking at the proposed new rules for joint committees. I am happy to move ahead on that matter.
Senator Bosa: Will the subcommittee meet before we meet as a committee?
Senator Pearson: The subcommittee relates only to the one item.
The Chairman: Are you referring to the letter to Peter Adams, or are you speaking about the restructuring of Senate committees?
I do not think the subcommittee has to meet again prior to the next general meeting.
Mr. O'Brien: I think the next step for the joint committees, as the letter states, is for our chairman to meet with the chairman in the other place. Perhaps that can be done as early as this week. I am told he is a very conscientious person and will have received this letter by now. As Senator Grimard said, an awful lot of work has been done on this issue, and it may be in a state that it can be brought very quickly before both committees to look at and resolve.
The Chairman: Do we not have a copy of the work done on the Senate side?
Mr. O'Brien: We do. A drafting of the rules was done. It was an agenda item in our last Parliament.
Senator Grimard: This is not easy. We need our own rule, and then we will discuss our rule. Then we will have the rule from the House of Commons, but which one will we use? We must go back to the House of Commons to know if they have accepted our rule, because sometimes we have rules that look better at first blush.
A lot of work has been done. It was almost completed.
Do you have a copy, Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes.
The Chairman: Senator, I am surprised you do not have a copy. You were doing it.
I will contact Mr. Adams and ensure that we are given copies. If you wish, I can circulate what we have, or the draft copy; Senator Grimard can look at it, and perhaps we can talk about it at our next meeting after the break.
Senator Grimard: Senator Gauthier was in charge. He was doing a good job, and I liked working with him. I do not know if you can continue to work on this, but he knew the rules of the other place.
The Chairman: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: In the past, I understand the committee met at least once a week and sometimes twice a week. How do you feel about that? Do you want to keep meeting regularly once a week, or do you feel that we should go through another session of recommending intervention or looking at other rules, or maybe all the rules, and meeting more often?
Senator Grimard: What happens if the Senate adjourns at 5:30 p.m. on a Tuesday? Will we have a meeting?
The Chairman: I am open to whatever honourable senators feel is appropriate.
Senator Robertson: We have regional caucus on Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m., which makes it very difficult. Not always on Tuesdays do we rise early.
The Chairman: We had thought of asking for permission to sit at 4:30 p.m. to give us at least an hour and one-half. I do not know whether that would be well received by colleagues in the Senate.
Senator Robertson: I do not think it is wise. Chairmen keep doing this. You hear statements from both sides of the house that they will not do it anymore, but they do.
The Chairman: There were problems in finding available times and available rooms. If the Senate were to rise at 5:30 p.m., we obviously would have to cancel such a meeting. Where do we go from here?
Mr. O'Brien: There was a suggestion that perhaps the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders could share the Thursday morning time slot at 9:00 a.m. with the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. If Internal Economy does not sit on a regular basis, this committee could slip into their slot if the Tuesday afternoon slot did not work out. The time slot is from 9:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.
Senator Rossiter: Are they anticipating not meeting every week?
Mr. O'Brien: It is difficult to say. I do not think they are meeting this week. They met last week.
The Chairman: I am asking that they not meet on November 27, because female employees of the federal government want to meet all female senators. I am sure you have all received letters to that effect.
Senator Grimard: On Thursday mornings at 8:30 a.m., Senator Kelly and myself attend meetings of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations. He is a member of this committee and I am a member, but other senators could be appointed as well. It is always a problem.
Senator Robertson: Who has the 11:00 a.m. slot?
Senator Pearson: The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
The Chairman: What other time slots are left?
Senator Grimard: Tuesdays at 4:30 p.m.
The Chairman: We would have to ask permission.
Senator Grimard: You can do that.
The Chairman: You would have to prepare your caucus and house leader. How would they feel about it?
Senator Robertson: I do not think our house leader would feel good about it.
The Chairman: I am not sure our house leader would either.
Senator Robertson: We do not even have the excuse that we have a witness waiting for us from out of town. What would be our excuse? I think they should find us another time.
Mr. O'Brien: We can look at it to see what would be a better time.
Senator Robertson: Once we get going, we will be very busy. We did not sit at all last year. I hear rumblings about many things.
Senator Petten: When did the committee meet in former years?
Mr. O'Brien: It met at 11:00 a.m. on Thursdays.
Senator Petten: Was that a bad time?
Mr. O'Brien: No, it was a very good time.
Senator Petten: Is it a good time now?
Senator Milne: Three members of this committee are also on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Mr. O'Brien: There were so many conflicts that that time minimized the conflicts for the members of this committee.
Senator Robertson: While we struggle with a new meeting hour, with respect to item number three on the agenda, you could strike that committee any time after the November 11 break, and that subcommittee could begin working on that matter. There is a lot of work to be done on that, and we want to do it properly.
The Chairman: Senator Pearson, did you want to look at that issue as well?
Senator Pearson: I just want it to be looked at. I do not have any time to look at it.
The Chairman: We will wait until our committee clerk finds us another slot.
Mr. O'Brien: I will do my best. Wednesday is caucus, but is there any way to start early on a Wednesday morning?
Senator Petten: No.
The Chairman: We already have a meeting at 8:00.
Senator Robertson: Will the Senate still sit at 1:30 p.m. and rise for committees on Wednesdays?
Mr. O'Brien: I think there is still an intention to keep that practice. Thus far, we have been adjourning until 1:30 p.m. on Wednesdays and there is a full slate of committee meetings on Wednesday when the Senate rises.
The committee adjourned.