Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing
Rules and Orders
Issue 8 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 3, 1998
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 4:04 p.m. to consider matters pursuant to its mandate under rule 86(1)(f) of the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Shirley Maheu (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we were to have a three-item agenda so that the French committee could meet. In the interim, Senator Joyal has been called away for a television program. Senator Grimard, you and I will have a first look at the translation into French.
I should like to remove Item No. 2.
Senator Prud'homme: You would like to remove my item from the agenda.
The Chairman: Yes, until the committees meet.
Senator Prud'homme: Who are the members of that committee?
Senator Grafstein: Which committee?
Senator Prud'homme: The committee who will decide my future.
Senator Grafstein: I am not deciding anyone's future. My understanding is that I will serve on a subcommittee which will make recommendations to this committee with respect to the structure of this committee itself, not to the membership of the committee.
Senator Prud'homme: I am referring to the principle of appointing independent senators to sit on committees.
Senator Grafstein: My understanding is that the subcommittee will make recommendations with respect to the number and the possible size of the committees, not to get into the structure. If we choose to do that, that is not the core of our mandate, as I understand it.
The Chairman: The core was to look at three proposals. It was suggested that Senators Kelly, Robertson, Grafstein, Joyal, Bacon and I will be ex officio members. We formally nominated the senators, and we agreed to it at our last meeting.
Senator Prud'homme: Agreed to what?
The Chairman: That they will look at changing the committee structure.
Senator Prud'homme: Exactly.
The Chairman: At the same time I think they will voice an opinion. Both caucuses will be looking at the rules. They may have opinions on the attendance or legitimacy of independent senators sitting on the committee. I know our caucus will be looking at it when we discuss the issue. I am sure the opposition caucus will look at it as well.
Senator Robertson: Honourable senators, there is no problem with the independent senators. We must first look at restructuring our process and numbers before we proceed. However, I see no particular difficulty.
Senator Kelly: The question of independent senators comes up again and again and I keep getting confused. However we do agree that there must be a process whereby independent senators can participate on committee. It is a question of the formula, but there is no argument about that.
The Chairman: May I have a motion that we accept the agenda, removing not only Item No. 2, but Item No. 5 as well, the televising of Senate committees.
Senator Robertson: What is the problem with Item No. 1? Do we have something in our background material?
The Chairman: There may not necessarily be documents in your notes.
Senator Sparrow raised the problem of the 1:30 meetings. He has suggested that we begin the Thursday session at 1:30. The rules call for the session to begin at 2 p.m. each day. Our leadership must ask leave every Tuesday in order to begin the Wednesday session at 1:30. Perhaps we should look at surveying the senators to see what we can do to accommodate certain senators starting earlier on Thursday. I assume it is so they can leave earlier to catch their planes.
Senator Robertson: I have no knowledge of this proposal. Perhaps I missed something along the way last spring when I was absent. However, I would certainly want to take that proposal to my caucus.
The Chairman: We are suggesting that we look at a survey of the senators. Therefore part of your discussion with your caucuses could cover this item. That is the extent of Item No. 1.
Senator Atkins: What is the problem with beginning the session 1:30 on Tuesdays?
The Chairman: The request is for the Senate to start at 1:30 p.m. on Thursdays in order for senators to catch their planes. Could you bring that up with your caucus?
Senator Atkins: If our vice-chair brings it to the floor.
Senator Robertson: Shall I do that?
Senator Atkins: It makes good sense, and we might even start every day at 1:30.
Senator Kelly: I am not disagreeing with the need on this back and forth movement to caucus, nor am I disagreeing with my colleague. However, we all wrestle with the issue of keeping senators in the chamber Thursday afternoons. That is the reality we face, and this is one way of addressing that problem to move.
Senator Robertson: Another reality would be to sit in the morning rather than the afternoon.
The Chairman: That will hit committees.
Senator Robertson: As would the Senate sitting at 1:30 p.m.
Senator Atkins: The other problem is getting more days in on an accumulated basis. We should be thinking about Monday night, in my opinion.
The Chairman: In any event, could the issue be discussed with your caucus? We will discuss it with our caucus as well.
Senator Bacon: Is Senator Atkins suggesting we sit Monday night?
Senator Atkins: As a possibility, yes. If one of the criticisms is that the Senate does not have enough accumulated days over the year, one way to alleviate the problem is to sit Monday nights because it gets senators in on Monday for three days of work.
Senator Grafstein: This is not to prejudge our caucus, but I can tell you that this proposal will meet with a mighty objection from some senators who feel that we are Ottawa-Toronto- Montreal centric, that we try to convenience ourselves for the eternal triangle and not for the interests of senators who must come from far away places. It is an attractive proposition, but I sense that there will be strong opposition for that reason.
Senator Kelly: More than one senator will have to come on Sunday.
Senator Grafstein: I do not want to comment on the earlier times on Tuesday. I find that Tuesdays tend to be full days in terms of critical meetings and luncheons.
I ran into a very unhappy situation last week. I think it was Senator Carney who asked to speak in advance of me in the chamber because she had to catch her plane. I told her by the same token that I had to speak because I had to get to Toronto for a speaking engagement at the same time. That was an unseemly exchange, but that is the way it was.
Anything that can alleviate that issue for senators travelling longer distances to my mind would be a salutary thing to do. I will certainly recommend that to our caucus, but who knows what happens once it gets into the meat cleaver.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, then, that we will return to our caucuses with the issue?
Senator Carstairs: Are we moving to 1:30 p.m. every day, or just Wednesday and Thursday and leaving Tuesday at 2:00 p.m.?
Senator Grafstein: We will consider it in our caucuses.
Senator Prud'homme: Madam Chair, there is nothing more hypocritical than the House of Commons. I sat in that house for 30 years. They kept repeating that they sit five days a week and we sit three days a week.
I proposed to abolish evening sittings in the House of Commons. No one noticed. I proposed to cancel Friday sittings. My good friend, the very reverend and pious Mr. Knowles opposed it. I appointed him the chairman of the Friday afternoon club, and I was the vice-chairman. That was a self-appointment. He said, "I know no one is here, but it looks good if we sit five days a week."
Thursday night would be more difficult than Monday. From time to time, perhaps every second week, a special committee could sit Monday night. Then we would be sitting four days. I do not wish to be hypocritical. I know the committee will look into that. I do not wish to mess around with its decision, but I know that something must be done. Senators must understand that if they cannot cope with it, they can bow out.
I am tired of hearing about consensus after consensus. If we have a good report where a majority of the two caucuses agree, put the report to the house and see if these people have the nerve and the guts to vote against it. This would apply to any particular resolution.
The Chairman: We will now turn to Item No. 3 on the agenda.
I should like to have a motion that the subcommittee on the restructuring of Senate committees be asked to report by the end of the year. Could I have a motion to that effect?
Senator Bacon: I so move.
The Chairman: Does anyone have an objection to reporting before the end of the year?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: That will give us some time to speak to our caucuses.
Senator Bacon: Not later than the end of the year.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Robertson: Madam Chair, do you have your caucus subcommittee appointed yet?
The Chairman: We are taking it to caucus.
Senator Robertson: I thought when we last met that a subcommittee of each caucus would facilitate movement, and then they would report to their caucus.
The Chairman: There was a subcommittee of this committee, not of caucus. I guess the members of this subcommittee could become the members of caucus.
Senator Atkins: We have done it both ways.
Senator Carstairs: To be fair, there will be a meeting of the whole caucus on December 2 to discuss committee reorganization.
Senator Prud'homme: Perhaps it is time for me to rejoin a committee so that I could participate.
The Chairman: We will now move to Item No. 4 on our agenda.
The sixth report of the rules committee presented in the Senate last June was concurred with following our summer adjournment. The report outlined the essential elements of the disability policy we proposed. We also said that if the general principles are acceptable, the committee intends to table before the Senate the precise regulations and details in the autumn.
We have discussed re-establishing our ad hoc subcommittee with Senators Kelly, Bryden and Joyal.
Is there agreement that we ask our subcommittee to join with the clerk and begin work as soon as possible? The clerk was to have prepared some general input for the ad hoc committee.
Senator Kelly: I thought that had been done.
The Chairman: I have still not seen any recommendations from the law clerk. I expect we will get that shortly.
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: We are talking about a legalese document.
Senator Grafstein: With respect to the subcommittee on the restructuring of Senate committees, has anyone taken the leadership to set a date to get to work on that?
Senator Bacon: I thought we were to deal with that today.
Senator Kelly: Let us meet after this meeting, if possible, and decide who will chair it, how we will proceed and when we will start.
Senator Grafstein: I am sitting in another committee where we are dealing with a final report.
Senator Kelly: That almost guarantees that we will elect you chairman.
Moving back to item number 4, I thought the ad hoc committee had outlined what the regulations should encompass and that it was then left to staff to put it in whatever form they wished.
The Chairman: No, it has not. We will have to insist that we have that within the next couple of weeks. Once that is ready, perhaps we could reconstitute the ad hoc subcommittee.
Senator Carstairs: With the greatest respect, if the ad hoc committee has laid open the guidelines and now a report is coming from the law clerk, it seems to me that that report should go to the full committee. Why would it go back to the ad hoc committee?
Senator Kelly: I think the ad hoc committee did its work.
Senator Carstairs: That is what I mean.
Senator Kelly: I would undertake to track down what stage the matter is at. The law clerk may think some things are missing.
The Chairman: I will endeavour to have the law clerk at our next meeting if that is agreeable.
Senator Carstairs: Excellent.
The Chairman: With regard to televising Senate committees, we are using television more and more. Each committee must come before the Senate with a motion asking for power to permit television coverage of its proceedings with the least interruption possible.
Are we interested in granting all standing committees this power on a permanent basis?
Senator Robertson: No.
Senator Carstairs: I would oppose that concept. It is up to each individual committee to come before the Senate. If they wish to have their hearings televised, they should make that decision within their own committee. I think that televising the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been very positive. However, there may well be times when a particular piece of legislation comes before a committee that, for whatever reason, in the view of the membership, it is not advisable to televise.
In the CPAC negotiations I wanted a disclaimer included. Someone may watch only one day of hearings with only positive witnesses on an issue. There should be a disclaimer saying that more witnesses will be heard on the bill so that people can get a balanced presentation. There are usually two sides to any issue. If we cannot present the entire witness list on a given day, there at least ought to be a disclaimer to say that there are other witnesses to come.
I would be very reluctant to give blanket authority for committees to televise everything because that would leave committees in the delicate situation of having no choice but to televise.
Senator Robertson: I agree about blanket authority for committees to televise. There may be some superficial issues that some people may want to have televised that would not be particularly good.
The Chairman: Are you opposed to automatic television exposure?
Senator Robertson: I think they should come to the chamber for permission.
Senator Atkins: It depends on what kind of reforms you make on standing committees by the end of the year. I believe that any Committee of the Whole should be televised. I would not disagree with you on standing committees. We are a public body and if we are going to debate anything in Committee of the Whole televising should be at the discretion of CPAC or whoever wants to cover it.
Senator Kelly: What is wrong with having even that on a case-by-case basis?
Senator Atkins: We would then get into a political debate which could be avoided with a standard rule. I take this approach only for Committees of the Whole. There is nothing stopping the public from coming in to watch the debate, so why can the cameras not be there?
Senator Kelly: CPAC cannot select a certain part of a proceeding to televise. They must televise the entire hearing or none of it at all. It must be live.
Senator Carstairs: It does not have to be live; it has to be live to tape, and when they play the tape, they have an obligation to play the entire tape. However, they put in a disclaimer that others can take their feeds from CPAC. So while CPAC will show the entire tape, CTV, for example, can take segments of that, just as they take segments from Question Period in the other chamber.
I agree with Senator Atkins that it is difficult to deny television coverage of Committee of the Whole. Every time we have had Committee of the Whole since I have been here it has been televised. I believe that when we hear from the privacy commissioner in Committee of the Whole we ought to televise that. However, then perhaps we should have a general discussion about televising everything that happens in the Senate. Why would you not, if that is the case? That is what happened in the House of Commons. I am not sure that we want to engage in that kind of a debate with this particular group.
Senator Atkins: You are talking about Question Period. If I thought it would make half-decent television, I would argue in favour of it. However, when one person is responding in the Senate for the government, I do not see that that makes sense.
Senator Carstairs: I would be in total agreement with you, Senator Atkins. That is why I would not wish to have coverage of the Senate. I would vote against having overall coverage of the Senate, but I would also argue against having blanket coverage of anything. I would argue that we should do it on a case-by-case or committee-by-committee basis. I understand that the Banking Committee has blanket permission to televise everything. They feel comfortable with that. However, I do not think Senator Kelly would have felt comfortable having television cameras in his Security Committee.
Senator Kelly: Not at all.
Senator Robertson: If memory serves correctly, a few years ago we tried inviting the television cameras in whenever they wanted to come, and it was a resounding failure.
Senator Bacon: Do you mean in the chamber?
Senator Robertson: Yes, in the chamber. In my opinion, I think the activity of the Senate was too boring for them to bother covering. It was a failure and it was quickly discontinued.
However, like Senator Atkins, I think that it is not a bad idea to televise Committees of the Whole.
Senator Prud'homme: I was the last person to give consent to that. It was dealt with in my committee and I had to fight the biggest names in Canada because of pressure when they went to CPAC. I was chairman of that committee and I am very prudent about anything that touches the institutions. I was playing the ultimate devil's advocate in the chamber. That is why we ended up having these kind of rules.
If you open doors without rules, they will come up under your nose like they did during the Oka crisis. They would only cover a little bit. That is why the CPAC rules are good. There is one Canada and every rule was well calculated. I am not opposing this, but I would advise you to be extremely careful because once the rules are established you cannot back off.
I said to my colleague Senator St. Germain that that would be the kind of debate that should be on TV. People could match the debate going on person for person in comparison with the House of Commons. They could see the seriousness of it. Perhaps with certain important debates we could make an announcement ahead of time.
However, that will set a precedent, something which I like. Once you have established a precedent, then everyone will say that we should continue. I would still be careful; however, at the same time, we should do something of that kind.
I am not as opposed as you mentioned to the matter concerning Question Period. However, it will change completely. It will become very partisan. I would be happy if there were television. However, the Speaker would not recognize me as often. It would be pleasant. It is coming; but where and how?
Senator Atkins: This subject raises the whole question, one which I know we will be dealing with in our own caucus, of how much we wish to mirror the House of Commons. Surely, we want to be different and more distinguished in the way we deal with our procedures. If we are to do the same things they do, then who would care? Whatever we allow and what processes we use, we should think about how we look different from them -- perhaps even more efficient and effective.
The Chairman: The House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed this morning to look again at opening all committees to television.
Senator Prud'homme: They are totally nuts. It will cost them a fortune. I do not understand. Maybe there are no old timers on that committee to tell them that. It will cost them a fortune. There are not enough rooms. There are 16 committees in the House of Commons. It seems to me that in the House they do not have this collective memory of the past.
Senator Carstairs: CPAC just cannot cover them. We have already had these kinds of conflicts between the Banking Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee which were meeting at the same time. They did want to cover both, but they could not because they do not have the equipment. We are now making more expenditures to ensure that they have the equipment, but they still have to have the bodies. I do not see any necessity for us to change the rule right now. Most committees have blanket permission. Banking and Legal both do.
The Chairman: Are there further comments on this issue?
Senator Robertson: Did the chamber give the Banking Committee, for instance, carte blanche for television coverage; and why? I do not remember.
Senator Carstairs: Senator Robertson, I can tell you what happens. They come in with motions which include this kind of thing and people do not pay a great deal of attention because it looks like a general motion. They have even gone one step further -- and I will stand up in the chamber whenever someone moves the adoption of the Social Affairs Committee report because they have not even done it by separate motion. They have thrown it in with the Social Affairs Committee report which includes a whole bunch of things. At the bottom of it, it states, "By the way, may we have permission for television?" It is not even by a separate motion.
I will not object to their report, which happens to be their twelfth report. I will stand up and say that I am not objecting to the report but I am objecting to throwing in motions which, frankly, get snuck through. That is exactly what has happened.
Senator Robertson: I object to any committee being placed in a preferential position. I think, perhaps, we should revisit that some time.
The Chairman: Except that we agreed to give them permission to televise.
Senator Carstairs: The report states, in part:
Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on June 18, 1988, to examine and report upon the dimensions of social cohesion in Canada in the context of globalization and other economic and structural forces that influence trust and reciprocity among Canadians, respectfully requests that it be empowered to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel that may be necessary --
That is the normal notion. Then, it states:
-- that the committee have power to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate --
Then it goes on to say:
The Committee also respectfully requests that it be permitted notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate, if the Senate is not sitting --
All of those things should be in three separate motions. They have all been lumped together.
Senator Kelly: I would just comment that we are all familiar with omnibus bills. A series of governments have used omnibus resolutions.
Senator Robertson: Can we not rescind the permission of the Banking Committee?
Senator Carstairs: You can introduce a motion to that effect.
Senator Robertson: Yes.
The Chairman: Prior to going to our next item, I ask that we proceed in camera.
The committee continued in camera.