Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing
Rules and Orders
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 25, 1997
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 4:20 p.m. to consider joint committees and other matters.
Senator Shirley Maheu (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
Senator Bosa: I move that we look to the possibility of finding a more linguistically attractive name to describe this committee.
The Chairman: Would you like to look at the issue with a few of your colleagues, senator?
Senator Bosa: Yes. We could call it the Standing Committee of Privileges, Rules and Order.
The Chairman: Could we look at that under "other matters" and start with the first item on the agenda, which is joint committees? We called this meeting to keep you informed about developments respecting the issues we agreed to place on the agenda at the last meeting we had in November.
Senator Grimard will remember that during the last session of Parliament he formed a working group, which included Senator Gauthier, and Mr. Milliken and Ms Catterall from the other place, to develop a common set of rules for joint committees.
The new chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the other place is Peter Adams, and he has agreed to look at them. We had the staff draw up some comparisons of what rules could be changed, where we were, and how house rules differentiated from those of the Senate. The background documents were circulated earlier this week. I would like to seek concurrence, in principle; in that regard, I would like to go over them. There are a few changes that I would like us to discuss.
Senator Rossiter: I am assuming, Madam Chairman, that these were set up following this.
The Chairman: When Chairman Adams and I met, we agreed that we should use the occasion to look into having a set of rules for joint committees, rather than each chairman operating under his or her own rules. He was not aware that the study had been done. He was very interested in pursuing this.
At this meeting, I suggested that we develop a new chapter so that there will be no ambiguity. In other words, there will be a separate set of rules for joint committees. This document represents most of the discussed changes. Perhaps we could look at accepting them over the next couple of weeks. It is not necessary to do it in the course of a day; however, it would be advisable for us to get this matter tidied up, as quickly as possible, to facilitate smooth functioning of the joint committees. At times, senators have felt a little left out when the joint chairman from the other place applies House of Commons rules.
Senator Kelly: You said that we adopt a set of rules that might apply to joint committees. In other words, the aim is to agree on a set of rules that would apply to joint committees. That would occasion the development of a set of rules that would have the effect of amending certain rules of the Senate and certain rules of the House of Commons.
The Chairman: Rules would be amended where they are not concordant.
Senator Kelly: We will begin with the end result and go from there to making amendments, et cetera, to make it uniform.
The Chairman: We will have to go before both chambers.
Senator Robertson: When the working group was set up some time ago, it was the intention to develop common rules that would be used when there were joint committees. That was the whole purpose of the working committee. I am pleased that the work of that working group has been brought forward. I know that some people, Senator Grimard, Mr. Milliken, and staff, certainly worked very hard at developing a consensus on some of these things.
It might be helpful, Madam Chairman, for the staff who worked on this document and who attended all of these meetings over the past year or so to identify the general direction and the general things that we should perhaps be looking at for approval. We have them before us; we have all read them.
The Chairman: This document was prepared by the staff.
Senator Robertson: Yes, I know that.
The Chairman: They have brought it up to date both for the Commons and the Senate.
[Translation]
Senator Grimard: At the end of the memo that you distributed several minutes ago, you indicated that this would involve adding either an appendix to the rules of procedure of each house or a separate chapter to these rules. Ideally, however, any new rules should be numbered the same way for both the Senate and the House. Could you explain this further to me?
The Chairman: A recommendation was made to add a new chapter this year to the Rules of the Senate as well as to the Standing Orders of the House. If we develop a new chapter, the provisions could bear the same number in both the rules and the standing orders and apply to both houses.
Senator Grimard: Perhaps Mr. Robertson could answer my question. If we draft new regulations for joint committees, would we not have to amend certain provisions of the Senate rules? If we bring in amendments that apply only to joint committees, then that would be fine. Would we not have to change certain provisions in our existing rules?
The Chairman: Possibly, but I will let James Robertson answer that question in further detail.
[English]
Mr. James Robertson, Research Branch, Library of Parliament: There are two approaches: One would be to have an appendix to the Rules of the Senate and the Standing Orders of the House, which would be a self-contained document and a complete code of procedure for all joint committees. It would have all the rules that would apply to joint committees. It might duplicate some of the rules found elsewhere in the Senate Rules and House of Commons Standing Orders, but it would mean that you would only have to look in this one document. Both chambers would adopt the same appendix. That would clearly be the simplest solution.
There would be a provision elsewhere in the Rules of the Senate and Standing Orders of the House that, with respect to a joint committee, the rules in the appendix would take precedence. In other words, none of the other rules would apply.
The other option would be to have the Rules of the Senate amended, where necessary, to make special provision for joint committees. There would, for instance, be a rule about quorum for committees of the Senate. There would be another sub-rule that would say, for example, "In the case of joint committees, the quorum shall be as follows". That is a bit awkward, but it has the advantage of doing less violence to the existing structure of the rules.
The Chairman: As well, fewer occasions would arise where we would have to search the rules of both places.
Senator Doyle: How can we hope in a joint committee to provide sober second thought, if it is contrary to what the Commons wants? We are into a permanent two-thirds/one-third voting situation.
The Chairman: In my opinion, it would not change the fact that reports would have to go back to the Senate in any event, so sober second thought would not be impeded in any way. The reports would come back.
Senator Doyle: When they come back to your own house, how do people who have worked on that committee feel about changing their vote?
The Chairman: I cannot speak for members of the House of Commons in this instance, but I can speak for the Senate. Today we passed a report where we were working on a joint committee.
Senator Doyle: I am not saying that this would come up with great frequency. But there have been, and there will be, and there are right now on the agenda, matters where we are differ strongly from the House of Commons.
The Chairman: Are you speaking of joint committees right now?
Senator Doyle: I am not speaking of joint committees right now; but joint committees seem to be increasing in number.
The Chairman: I do not see a problem, but perhaps other senators may. No matter what a committee undertakes, the House or the Senate has to accept the report and adopt it prior to it coming into force.
Senator Robertson: If the Senate turned down the report of a joint committee, how would we proceed? How would the joint committee proceed? Is there a second process?
Mr. Robertson: I suppose, if it is a special joint committee, by the time the committee has tabled its report, the committee is at an end. It really depends on whether there is any action required by the Senate or the House. Often, special committees are appointed to make recommendations to the government. Obviously, if there is concurrence by each chamber, that strengthens the report. Presumably, if one chamber has rejected the report, it would also weaken the thrust of the report.
The wisdom of having joint committees is certainly one that different people have raised for different reasons, whether it is a good idea to have joint committees and whether a particular subject lends itself to a joint committee.
The intent of this exercise was more to ask: If there is a joint committee, how can we ensure that the procedures are as clear as possible to avoid some of the procedural difficulties that have arisen?
Senator Robertson: Perhaps to address Senator Doyle's concern, if there were recommendations for specific action to the government, the government would have to do something to get those specific recommendations before both chambers. At that time, the Senate could debate and vote against the recommendation, the legislation, or whatever the vehicle was that came over, to reflect that.
The Chairman: By participating in a joint committee, it does not preclude the Senate from passing it on second reading, going to its own committee and deciding not to support it. It does not change any of the authority that the Senate now has.
Senator Robertson: No, I understand that.
Mr. Robertson: I should point out, although it is not directly relevant, that there exists in the House of Commons a provision for committees to ask for a government response to a committee report. There has been debate in the Senate about whether Senate committees should have a similar power.
One of the things that the working group suggested was that a joint committee should have the right to request a government response; as well, that if it is requested, any government response should be required to be tabled in the Senate so that it was not just responding to the House of Commons. That, of course, would give the Senate an opportunity to further debate or discuss or take action.
Senator Rossiter: I read that part. There is nothing to say that a response should be given within a defined period of time, is there?
The Chairman: The period is 150 days.
Mr. Robertson: It should be within 150 days. We did not specify that in the third column. That was implied.
[Translation]
Senator Grimard: This is serious matter. We have to make some distinctions. For instance, what if the committee for the scrutiny of regulations decides to disallow legislation -- Senator Lewis knows perfectly well what I am talking about since he co-chaired the committee with me -- and tables a report to the Commons? The House of Commons moves to disallow the law and the Senate has nothing to do with it. Therefore, if rules for joint committees are introduced, we will have to agree on these very serious points. Do you not agree, Mr. Robertson? If the committee for the scrutiny of regulations tables a report, as a matter of courtesy, it presents a copy of the report to the Senate. However, the Senate has absolutely nothing to do with the process.
The Chairman: That is correct.
Senator Grimard: How do you plan to reconcile the general rules that will apply both to the Senate and to the House of Commons? I mention this particular case because I am involved with this committee. How are we going to proceed? We will be forced to change many things.
The Chairman: I have also sat on that committee. As I understand it, the government is not required to take into account what a particular committee decides. Perhaps Senator Lewis could enlighten us further.
[English]
The Chairman: Having sat on that committee, am I not right in concluding that if the department decides not to agree with what comes out of that report then it is sort of in the same situation as the Senate, the fact that the Senate is not consulted on that particular committee's report? Really, it does not change anything.
Senator Grimard: When the Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations presents a report to disallow a law, that report is presented to the House of Commons and the Senate has nothing to do with it. If we want to have common rules for joint committees, what will happen with this single, very important problem?
Senator Lewis: On page 5 of the document that compares the rules of both Houses, it says:
Joint Committees should have the right to request a government response in the House of Commons. Provision should be made that a copy of anything filed in the House will also be tabled in the Senate.
Of course, it does not go any further to say what can be done, but that is covered in the scrutiny of regulations act. The government can ignore it, of course.
The Chairman: I do not think the Senate has ever had a say in the scrutiny of regulations, except on the joint committee.
Senator Lewis: That is right. In my experience, there was no difficulty on that. In a way, it is a toothless tiger.
The Chairman: I did not want to put it that way, but I agree.
Senator Robertson: Senator Grimard, in your work with the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee, where you are changing or deleting regulations, and so forth, do you not get any information as to whether the recommendations of the committee have been ignored or followed? It has been a long time since I have been on that committee.
Senator Grimard: In our work with the informal working group, there was a lot of cooperation. Mr. Robertson and I were there. Our meetings were concluded very quickly. The four of us would often reach an agreement within a half an hour; but I was never sure that the House of Commons would concur with our finding.
Senator Robertson: Did you get anything back from the House or from the departments concerned?
Senator Grimard: No.
The Chairman: On Scrutiny of Regulations, the departments very often come back with responses to your concerns about a certain clause.
Just prior to Parliament's prorogation, we were on the verge of refusing to recognize a set of regulations; I did not hear the outcome of that.
Senator Grimard: At a glance, Madam Chairman, it seems to be easy, but it is not. If you look at all those pages, you will see that there are many procedural differences between the House of Commons and the Senate. I
It is my opinion that joint committees must operate under a set of rules specific to joint committees.
The Chairman: Yes, that is what we are saying.
Senator Grimard: It is not easy. My feeling is that sometimes we act too quickly. I do not know if both caucuses will accept what we have decided. I do not know if it will be accepted because we never go back to our caucuses for authorization.
The Chairman: We could go back with a chapter rewritten and let our caucuses study it strictly for joint committees. I do not think that we have to get into a battle in caucus over every single rule. We could rewrite the rules and ask to have a consultation with our different caucuses.
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: The working group did not consult the chairs of joint committees. Senator Gauthier felt that to consult with too many people would slow down the process. His idea was to get something down on paper and present it to the respective committee of each house. Following that, this committee or another committee may start consulting.
Senator Grimard: That was not only the opinion of Senator Gauthier. That was our opinion. We all agreed. I think he was definitely right.
Mr. Robertson: The informal working group did come up with the instructions they wanted in this new chapter or appendix. For a number of reasons, the work did not get completed beyond that, although there was some drafting started at the staff level. To some extent, there needs to be a draft of the new chapter or new appendix. It would be much easier to ask different individuals or groups whether they approve or like the draft because then they will know what the actual wording will be, as opposed to this document, which is more the instructions for the drafting of the document. That was what the working group had done.
Some work needs to be done. There may be additions required which will become apparent once we look at the entire chapter because there are things which are implicit in the Rules but which are not actually set out. These may have to be set out if you are looking at writing a self-contained chapter.
Senator Grimard: Do you think that we have enough agreement so that you or someone else can prepare that draft that should be discussed by the House of Commons and by the Senate?
Mr. Robertson: Yes, I think so.
Senator Grimard: I think our work was well done, but it is not complete.
The Chairman: I would like us to look at a couple of recommendations that have been brought to my attention before we go to Senator Kelly's motion.
On page ii of Appendix A to the Background Notes on Rules for Joint Committees, under the paragraph headed "Power to Create Subcommittees", Rule 97(5) refers to seven members. One recommendation has been that rather than us trying to impose a number of members in our submission of the rules, we leave it to the joint committee.
Senator Rossiter: Is there not something in here that says two-thirds to one-third?
Mr. Robertson: That is for the membership of the full joint committee.
The Chairman: There are co-chairs who will keep a proper balance.
On page iii, under the heading "Members Ex officio", it says to delete Rule 88. It reads: "In practice, ex officio members do not participate in joint committees." It has been suggested that we delete it. It does not bother me if we delete it.
Do you think the leadership of both parties would object to not being ex officio? They don't attend, in any event.
Senator Lewis: What is the present situation? Are they on the joint committee.
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Robertson: My recollection is that there was some uncertainty as to whether that particular provision applies to joint committees. In practice, they do not attend. It would offset the two-thirds/one-third proportion. There would be nothing, as you say, to prevent any of the House leaders or their deputies from attending, just as any senator or the House can attend.
The Chairman: Looking further down at "Pecuniary Interest." It has been proposed that S.O. 21, rule 95(1) is to be "superseded by recommendations from Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct." There has been no decision made by that committee. Could we leave it in and delete it later rather than follow the recommendation?
Senator Kelly: Sure.
The Chairman: I would now direct your attention to page iv, under "Standing Orders." We often think we have covered most eventualities. In case something fell through the cracks, or something arises that we did not provide for, a recommendation has been made in this particular document that the Rules of the Chamber initiating the joint committee shall apply. Do you see anything wrong with that?
Senator Lewis: You would have to have that anyway.
Mr. O'Brien: The problem with that is that Scrutiny of Regulations is in our standing orders right now. It did not originate in either house; it came from an act.
If the feeling is that for unprovided cases in that committee or in Official Languages or in the Library of Parliament, it is not clear the origin of that committee, where would one go for unprovided cases?
Senator Kelly: Perhaps Madam Chairman would help me find an example. Where are the eligible sources for reference to a standing committee? They are in either of the two houses, but where else?
The Chairman: For example, if the House of Commons initiated a joint committee on the parliamentary restaurant and something happened that was not covered, then House rules could apply in that case.
Senator Bosa: House of Commons rules.
The Chairman: Yes. I was just using that as an example.
Is that agreeable to this committee?
Senator Lewis: I suppose, in the act of initiating a committee, the particular house which initiated it could set out some rules.
The Chairman: Yes. Right now, we do not have that.
Senator Lewis: Those rules may be different from these.
Senator Rossiter: Would that be a special joint committee?
Senator Lewis: Yes.
The Chairman: That would be a special joint committee with a mandate.
Senator Rossiter: That is a different story.
The Chairman: These are standing committees.
Senator Kelly: "Initiating the joint committee" suggests not a standing committee but a special committee. A standing committee already exists.
Senator Milne: Halfway down page iv, it reads: "Co-chairs to have the right to vote, when chairing meeting and otherwise, but no casting vote." What does that mean?
Mr. Robertson: In the House of Commons, the chairs of committees do not have an original vote. They do not vote unless there is a tie. Therefore, they have a casting vote but no original vote.
In the Senate, it is the opposite. They have an original vote and not a casting vote. There has always been the problem of which rule applies to a joint committee.
Senator Robertson: Coming back to the "unprovided cases," Mr. Robertson, are you comfortable with that?
Mr. Robertson: No. It is clearly, as Senator Kelly said, premised on their being a special joint committee. For standing joint committees, unless we can come up with something to propose to you, I would almost be inclined to leave it silent because I do not think one should say that one house or one chamber predominates. It should not be historically on the basis of which chamber appointed a committee which has then got a statutory base, or which one appointed its members first.
Senator Robertson: I would be more comfortable with a silent position on this, for the time being.
Mr. Robertson: This will be restricted to special joint committees.
Senator Robertson: At some time in the future, we may want to look at standing joint committees.
Mr. Robertson: Precisely. And we may, in the course of our drafting, come up with a solution, but unless a specific solution is devised, I do not think we can attempt to try to deal with that.
Senator Robertson: Treat it as two separate entities. I think that would be wise.
Mr. Robertson: The difficulty with these rules is that we were trying to come up with rules for joint committees. There are two types of joint committees: the standing and the joint. The Scrutiny of Regulations Committee has, because of the nature of its work and because of its historical evolution, developed its own practices, which are not always exactly the same as set out here.
At some point, we will consult with the members of that committee, to determine if they can live with the rules.
Senator Robertson: At some point, if we can make progress with this, it might be profitable to look at the standing joint committees.
Senator Bosa: Madam Chairman, is there a mechanism in this draft paper for amending the rules in future?
The Chairman: It would be the ordinary process; it should go to committee and then to the house.
Mr. Robertson: It was proposed that we develop some kind of mechanism such that, if the Senate decided to amend the appendix, the rules for joint committees, the House would be notified of that change. They would at least be formally advised of the change. The situation would be similar if the House decided to make a change.
The idea would be that there would be consultation, hopefully. These rules are not going to work if there is not cooperation.
Senator Bosa: You do not say to the other House, "This is what we would like." We are speaking of the conditional.
The Chairman: I wonder if we could look at the section titled "Majority Conclusions." In the third line, the word "brief" is used. What constitutes brief? People are reasonable. I think that should be left to the discretion of joint chairs. Would you agree with that?
Senator Kelly: Yes.
The Chairman: How do you define "brief"?
Senator Kelly: You are hoping to avoid two separate, complete reports.
The Chairman: That has happened.
Senator Bosa: It is impossible to foresee, and to define, every possible situation. You have to proceed by trial and error.
The Chairman: The definition of "brief" varies, depending on who you are speaking to.
Senator Kelly: It may depend on who you are listening to.
Mr. Robertson: The intention of this particular recommendation was to give the joint chairmen some basis on which to assess whether a minority opinion should be annexed to the report. By saying that it must be "brief and relevant," it would give them some grounds on which they could decide. If it were a particularly lengthy opinion or if it was one that delved into extraneous matters, the joint chairmen would have some discretion to restrict it.
The Chairman: Perhaps it is better to leave it to the joint chairmen rather than for us to try to interject any rules.
Senator Lewis: On page iv, I notice the suggestion that a "majority of the members of the joint committee shall constitute a quorum."
The Chairman: Provided that each chamber is represented.
Senator Lewis: In Scrutiny of Regulations, the quorum is four, provided that there is a member of each chamber.
How many members make up the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee? Is it 16 or 18?
The Chairman: Twenty-six. Democracy calls for a majority.
Senator Kelly: We would never meet that.
Senator Lewis:No, we would never meet that.
The Chairman: It is hard to put a number down there, isn't it?
Senator Rossiter: Is it an unwritten rule -- is it not? -- that you do not begin a meeting without two representatives from each side?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Bosa: If you have five parties on the other side, the quorum should be a minimum of six, so that every party would be represented.
The Chairman: We are going into all parties then. The number six may apply at present, but after the next election, you may not be able to use six.
Senator Rossiter: Yes, but there is government and there is opposition.
The Chairman: That is right. A member of the opposition should be there.
Senator Rossiter: Regardless of how many parties there are, there is only one party in government. There are more parties opposition. You do not have to cater to every one of them.
Senator Bosa: Is every recognized party entitled to have a member on this committee?
Senator Lewis: My memory may be incorrect, but as far as Scrutiny of Regulations is concerned, we adopted the motion at the beginning of every session or new Parliament.
Mr. O'Brien: It makes its first report requesting a lower quorum.
Senator Lewis: Yes, we request a quorum.
Mr. O'Brien: The problem, senator, is that first meeting.
Senator Lewis:Yes, that is right. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Senator Robertson: Coming back to the "Majority Conclusions," if I may, let us take the most ridiculous case of a special joint committee. Let us say that it is a very fractious group, a very disgruntled group, and you have members from "X" number of parties. Am I reading this correctly, that you might have a dissenting opinion from four or five different parties?
There are a number of senators who believe that the majority should, in fact, support the report. We will go at this every once in a while in our own committees, as well. Some senators do not believe that there should be minority reports attached to committee reports.
The Chairman: Yes, I have heard that.
Senator Robertson: I am not sure if I am comfortable with that. Can someone give me comfort on that?
The Chairman: Are you questioning whether or not we should have minority reports on a joint committee?
Senator Robertson: On our Senate committees, some chairmen have objected to minority reports.
The Chairman: They may object but on joint committees I do not think --
Senator Robertson: I am not speaking of joint committees. I am speaking of Senate committees. I can envision a very garbled committee report. You have a report from the Reform Party, from the NDP, et cetera.
The Chairman: It has happened.
Senator Robertson: The public would think we are very foolish.
Senator Bosa: Madam Chairman, we have allowed recommendations to go along with a report.
Senator Robertson: It seems very messy; I am not sure.
The Chairman: I do not know that we can prevent parties from making minority reports.
Senator Robertson: They can make minority reports and publish them separately. Perhaps I am being picayune.
Mr. Robertson: I was at a meeting in the House this morning where the request was made to attach a dissenting opinion, and the motion was defeated. We could do it on the basis of a motion by the committee that the dissenting opinion would be attached upon approval by the full committee, with the chairman or the two joint chairmen having the discretion to determine whether it is brief and relevant.
That is partly an administrative function. Often the committee will have finalized its report and then there is a period of time during which the dissenters have to submit a report.
Senator Rossiter: You used the word "opinion." An opinion could be on an item; a report could be on the whole subject.
Mr. Robertson: In the House, "dissenting opinion(s)" is used. The report is the committee report. That is the one that is approved by the majority. If individual members or parties dissent from all or part of it, that is an opinion, and it is printed after the signature of the chairman. It does not form part of the report. It is an appendix, in fact.
Senator Bosa: Is it tabled?
Mr. Robertson: It is tabled as part of the report.
Senator Robertson: It comes in as an appendix.
Mr. Robertson: Yes.
Senator Robertson: I feel more comfortable knowing there is an appendix. I think the joint chairmen will have difficulty not so much with the relevancy but with the briefness.
The Chairman: It is very difficult to force a rule on that.
One subject that I think this rules committee will be facing in the Senate is participation by non-members with no votes allowed.
Senator Bosa: Madam Chairman, if I just may have a point of clarification. We touched upon quorum. Now we are talking about a possible dissenting opinion. Do you want some specific recommendations on this or should we just discuss everything that is in front of us?
The Chairman: If you disagree, let us hear from you.
Senator Bosa: We are leaving these clauses without proper recommendation. For instance, Senator Robertson mentioned a minority opinion. Are we in favour of that? What do we do?
Senator Robertson: I have not made a motion on that. I am just thinking out loud here. If I do not make a motion, then I am content to let it pass.
Senator Bosa: In the case of a quorum, it was mentioned that we should have a minimum of six.
The Chairman: I raised it to find out what you want to see. If no one has a position, then we could look at a chapter draft by staff, following which we will thoroughly go through it, one-by-one, article by article. If we see something that we want changed, then we can make recommendations at that time.
Senator Kelly: Surely, we can agree that we cannot accept the suggestion that it has to be a majority. Why do we not decide that we cannot accept that?
Senator Milne: This is really just a preliminary discussion as we go through all of these points. We are going to have another go at this.
The Chairman: Absolutely. There will be at least one; there may be several.
Senator Rossiter: There will be second opinions.
The Chairman: There was a lot of work done by Senator Grimard and Senator Gauthier on this issue. It is not something we are allowed to take lightly. We have to look at every recommendation. It is just the idea of a chapter that was new, and the chairman in the other place agreed that it would resolve many problems.
Senator Grimard: I must add that that was not only our suggestion. In principle, it was accepted by the representative of the House of Commons
Senator Robertson: When you have a special joint committee, are other members of either House allowed to attend and participate as long as they do not vote?
The Chairman: It does not cover special joint committees; it covers standing committees.
Senator Robertson: What has happened in the past with special joint committees? Have other people been able to attend and participate in the debate?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Robertson: My recollection is that it does not happen very often, but I do not see why they could not. Certainly, if you look at rule 91 of the Senate, it seems to cover joint committees.
Senator Robertson: I wondered what the practice was.
The Chairman: They did not vote. Even on special joint committees, they did not vote. I was on a couple of them.
Senator Robertson: No, only the members can vote, but they have come.
Mr. Robertson: The problem in most cases is getting enough members there for a quorum. This was a greater problem in the last Parliament than in this Parliament. Usually, if a member is there, they are substituted in as a member because they need the numbers more than anything else.
The Chairman: Are there any recommendations on the issue of participation by non-members, other than what is on the form? In the past, even a replacement member could vote at a particular meeting, but they do not vote on the final submission, nor does their name appear on the final report.
We are going to have to look at our own rules on that at some point.
Senator Bosa: It is a standing provision in our committees.
The Chairman: What about written reports? Are you allowed to vote in Senate committees? No.
Senator Kelly: No, but you participate in every other respect.
Senator Robertson: Unless you are a recognized substitute by the whip.
Senator Kelly: That is if a vote is taken at that time.
Senator Bosa: In that case, every person is a member.
Senator Rossiter: That is right. The original person is off while the other is on.
Mr. Robertson: That rule differs in both Houses. In the House, if you are substituted in by the whip, you are substituted in for that particular meeting. Once you leave that meeting, you are no longer a member of that committee.
Senator Kelly: What happens if there is a vote at that meeting?
Mr. Robertson: You have full powers. In the Senate, at the termination of that meeting, if you are a substitute, you become the member until somebody has substituted for you, until you are removed by the whip.
Senator Bosa: In the other place, do they require a certificate from the whip?
Mr. Robertson: Yes.
The Chairman: Would you like to see a draft copy of what we have discussed? Rather than present it in this way, could we look at a draft copy?
Senator Robertson: Sure. May I ask staff where the House of Commons stands on this? Have they had a committee meeting on this?
Mr. Robertson: No. Today, Mr. Adams is circulating the same documents that were circulated to the members of this committee, as well as a covering memo which is very similar. It explains that he met with the chairman and what they discussed. I understand that he is hoping to deal with it at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs before Christmas. It is possible that it could be dealt with next Tuesday morning at eleven o'clock, but it depends on a couple of other things with which they are dealing.
Senator Robertson: It would be interesting to cross-reference and compare, following that meeting.
Mr. Robertson: Certainly.
The Chairman: It would be interesting to see where they agree and disagree.
Senator Bosa: If we come up with some amendments and prepare a final copy, they could benefit by having a copy of it.
Mr. Robertson: Yes. It would depend on the timing. But certainly we would endeavour to ensure that, if there are any major concerns, those are communicated to them before they make their final decision.
The Chairman: It sounds as though Mr. Adams is ready to move ahead with this as quickly as possible. He was not made aware of it at the beginning when we were because of the total change over there of committee members and committee chairmen.
Senator Lewis: Just off the subject, on page v, under "Broadcasting," it says: "The issue can be dealt with in resolutions establishing joint committee." It seems to me that a bit of a tangle might occur if there were different resolutions in the different chambers. Would it not be better to leave the question of broadcasting to the committee itself?
The Chairman: You are right.
Senator Lewis:That is what we have now under our rules, is it not?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Kelly: That is a good idea.
The Chairman: I cannot remember the subject of broadcasting ever coming up in on joint committees in the past.
Mr. O'Brien: They may put it in the motion.
Mr. Robertson: There is a fairly generic clause in the original order of reference which allows the committee to have its proceedings broadcast. My impression is that in the other place the House leaders and whips like to keep a certain degree of control over broadcasting. There is one committee room in the House that is equipped for broadcasting. Any meeting going on in there, including a joint committee that has the power to broadcast, would be able to have its proceedings filmed and shown on the parliamentary channel.
I do not think the intention was that the order of reference would set out the logistics in any detail. It would be decided on a case-by-case basis whether a particular committee should be given the power to be broadcast.
Ultimately, it is a political decision, whether the rules should provide for it or whether the House party leaders wish to keep an element of control there.
Senator Rossiter: It depends on the topic under discussion, and then there is the question of availability.
The Chairman: We will leave that in your capable hands, Mr. Robertson, and you will prepare a draft for us.
Senator Robertson: I would suggest, too, that we not meet on this issue until we get some indication from the other house.
The Chairman: I turn now to the other item on our agenda. The subcommittee that we formed on November 4 met once. We were established to look at the issue of attendance because it had been five years since the register had been created.
We have since been invited by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to participate with its ad hoc subcommittee on attendance and absenteeism. The group met last week. We will continue to work with the clerk in reviewing all aspects of this issue. We intend to look at ways of improving attendance and changing the deductions for non-attendance.
Senator Robertson: That has not been decided yet. That is on the table.
The Chairman: These are some of the issues that we were willing to look at: clarifying the meaning, for example, of public business; conditions surrounding the use of sick leave.
Senator Bosa: Is this the special committee of four?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Bosa: Who are the members of this committee?
The Chairman: Senator Robertson, Senator LeBreton, Senator Callbeck and Senator LeBreton.
Senator Kelly: Is there anyone here who is old enough to remember that, years ago, the public school system had truant officers? Seriously, why do we not have a truant officer? If somebody says he is sick, send the truant officer to his home and see if he really is sick. I think that is a hell of a good idea. If you were that way inclined, you would get all the media scare out of your system.
The Chairman: That system was almost looked at by the committee prior to this one.
Senator Robertson: I will not ask a medical person for a note, never mind have a truant officer come to my house.
Senator Kelly: I would like to see the whole thing off the table.
The Chairman: There were several other subjects that were tossed around: defining various other types of leave, attending board meetings, et cetera. The option of taking away administrative resources for senators with grievous attendance records was something that was looked at by the prior Internal Economy Committee. We have to ensure transparency in the disclosure of attendance.
We have many issues to look at. I am not sure at what point will we be reporting back, but it is something that we cannot drop. It has to go on.
Senator Kelly: Is attendance recorded in the other place?
The Chairman: No. You are on an honour system; you fill out a form.
Senator Kelly: I wonder why it is not. It seems to be fairly important. Do we know of any provincial legislatures where attendance is recorded?
Mr. Robertson: We are doing a survey now.
Senator Robertson: To the chair's comments, what your committee asked our legal advisor and our clerk, Mr. O'Brien, to do was to come to the next meeting with an assessment of what we could do outside of the constitutional framework, what areas we can touch and what we cannot touch. I think that is our starting point.
The Chairman: Assess what we can do without changing the act, as well, because the act is very specific.
Senator Robertson: Yes, this would be without touching the legislation. Until we get that report from staff, we have to sort of sit tight, and then look at it.
The Chairman: That was just a run-down of some of the subjects that will be looked at. We should be open with this committee so that, when we come back, you will have some sort of an idea. Is there anything else that you would like to see discussed that is not covered? I think everything is pretty well covered. Do you have anything that you would like to see added to the list?
Senator Robertson: Do you mean added to the list for subcommittee or to the list for this committee?
The Chairman: I am referring to the subcommittee, to share amongst ourselves.
Senator Grimard: I was not too happy at the last meeting of our committee about le Huissier de la Verge Noire. We were rushed. If you remember, we had that meeting at 1:30. It was very urgent. It was important to make a decision because the new le Huissier de la Verge Noire was taking her place on the next day. I was unhappy, not only about the issue of the meeting, because we were acting in good faith, but also at the end we were made to look extremely foolish.
The Chairman: That order, as you well know, Senator Grimard, came from Senator Kinsella to me, telling me and warning me in advance that he would not allow her to sit; he would be calling "stranger in the house." Unfortunately, you were the only person who got up and said it. I guess when the opposition saw where the suggestion really came from and were made conscious of it, there were a few surprised looks. I have no reason to trust Senator Kinsella. I have been stung once. Watch it, I will not be stung again. The onus should have been on him to have called her a stranger and let it ride.
We do not have the right, as senators or as an institution, to tell the Prime Minister what he can and cannot do.
Senator Robertson: I will not get into that.
The Chairman: There are many who agree with you. My opinion is that we do not have that right.
Senator Robertson: If the information coming from the Office of the Prime Minister is wrong, then we have a obligation and a responsibility.
The Chairman: Yes, we would have an obligation to respond. But to blow it out of proportion and to make it an issue which made this whole committee look ridiculous is not acceptable.
It will not happen again as long as I am here.
Senator Grimard: I hope not.
The Chairman: Having to listen to that source, let us put it that way. Thank you for agreeing with me.
We will adjourn until the call of the chair on this committee or until staff is ready to present us with their report.
Senator Grimard: Another thing that I do not accept is that we have meetings when the Senate adjourns.
The Chairman: Find us another spot, Mr. O'Brien.
Senator Grimard: The Senate could adjourn at three o'clock, at four o'clock, at five o'clock. What happens to us?
Senator Robertson: A regular time slot would ensure some order. If there was no business for this committee at a particular time, then we could slot a subcommittee into that time slot.
The Chairman: The time slot "when the Senate rises" does not suit any of us, really. You have problems, Senator Milne.
Senator Milne: My problems occur on Wednesday, when the Senate, theoretically, rises early.
The Chairman: I will ask Mr. O'Brien to take a look at that.
The committee adjourned.