Proceedings of the Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence of November 5, 2002
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 5, 2002
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:34 a.m. to examine the tabling of reports.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I understand, Senator Rompkey, that you have something to bring forth.
Senator Rompkey: Honourable senators, I wanted to bring to the attention of committee members rules 95(2) and 95(3). Usually, these rules are suspended at the beginning of every session. They are rules that allow committees to meet during breaks. If they do not have a meeting for more than one week, that is acceptable, if you suspend rules 95(2) and 95(3), which prevents you doing that.
These rules have been referred to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedure and the Rights of Parliament for examination and report. As we will not report for some days, a problem arises for several committees that want to meet during the break, for example, Human Rights, National Security, Official Languages, and perhaps even Rules. I am not sure. However, if a committee were to meet during the break, these rules would present an impediment, if they were not suspended.
My suggestion is that we recommend that rules 95(2) and 95(3) be suspended until the committee presents its final report in relation to this order of reference.
The Chairman: I believe that Mr. Charles Robert can provide us with some history on the reason for these rules. Mr. Robert, please join us at the end of the table.
Mr. Charles Robert, Principal Clerk, Procedure, Senate of Canada: From what we have been able to piece together, these rules came into effect around 1905. They were taken, in some sense, to maintain the tight leash that the Senate has traditionally retained over its committees. If one looks at Bourinot, fourth edition, 1916, he does not seem to be aware of this new rule change that was made 10 years previously. However, he does suggest that at one point the Speaker of the Senate had advised his colleagues that there was no requirement to have a motion adopted to allow committees to sit during adjournment. In stating that position, he was following the practices of the House of Lords, which they felt they were entitled to follow as a default.
In 1905, for one reason or another — it seems a little difficult to understand at this point with the rather limited amount of research that we have done — they decided that they would insist that committees must provide notice to members who were meeting over a short adjournment period. That would really mean whether the committee was sitting on a Saturday or a Sunday. If the Senate were adjourning for a period longer than one week, a motion would have to be adopted by the Senate to allow the committee to sit during that period. Again, the intent seems to have been that the Senate wanted to keep close watch over the activities of its committees and authorize them to do what they requested.
The Chairman: It is my understanding that, at that time, the Senate sat five days a week.
Mr. Robert: Certainly, it sat often five days a week. It certainly sat more often on Fridays than it does now.
The Chairman: On Mondays as well.
Mr. Robert: Often.
The Chairman: Of course, now we have committees that meet regularly on Mondays.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Robert, in the information you have provided, there is a notice given ahead of time to members so that they will know that, if there is a recess, they could be called to sit on a committee of which they are a member. The point I have in mind is that we have a calendar that provides us with a certain number of weeks a year for sitting. Some of us try to make an effort to be there when we sit on those regular weeks of sitting, and we try to save our travelling, community activities, professional activities and so forth for the weeks we are adjourned.
If we are to be called to sit on a committee during an adjournment week, we have to know ahead of time and not two days before. Canada is a huge country. If we are informed on Thursday that, the following week, when we are supposed to be adjourned, a committee will sit, it may present problems for some committee members. Some of us may have organized our agendas differently.
I do not have an objection in principle to committees sitting when we are adjourned. However, the idea of a fixed calendar was to help us to manage our agenda, to enable us to be in attendance when the Senate sits and to use the other weeks for business and other activities. I am not opposed to the rule, but we should know ahead of time, not 24 hours, that we will not be able to meet a previous commitment, which may involve cancelling plane tickets, et cetera. There are practical points with that issue that I think should be canvassed by my colleagues if we are to change that rule.
The Chairman: At the present time, I understand that some committees have already scheduled meetings for the week that we will not be sitting, which is next week. Unless something happens in the interim, they will be completely stymied and their witnesses will have been greatly inconvenienced.
Senator Andreychuk: There is still time, if no one blocks the process. I thought rule applied not only to committee members, as Senator Joyal has said, but to other senators because a senator may attend any committee. There are often issues that are of interest to senators who are not members of a particular committee, and they are free to attend any meeting they wish. Somehow or other, we need notice, and fair notice, to attend those meetings. This matter goes to our parliamentary privilege to attend all committees.
I would be very uncomfortable suspending that rule in the interim when, with a little cooperation from our side and your side and some of the independents, we could accomplish that which is desired. We are here Tuesday; I think we can do it by Thursday, for those who want to sit next week.
Senator Rompkey: The problem is not always necessarily our side and your side. There are other considerations.
Senator Andreychuk: I did say ``independents.''
Senator Rompkey: We should not dismiss that lightly as a ``fait accompli.'' It is often much more than that. I would be worried if the argument is based on unanimous consent.
Senator Stratton: Senator Murray had a legitimate concern, as expressed by Senator Andreychuk as well, that appropriate notice must be given because we were having meetings called without due notice.
Notice was sent out at 9:50 on a Friday night, because of all the faxes that had to go out, for the Human Rights Committee, I believe.
Mr. Blair Armitage, Deputy Principal Clerk, Committees Branch and Private Legislation, Senate of Canada: It was the Social Affairs Committee.
Senator Stratton: How does one receive appropriate notice at 10:50 on a Friday night? One does not.
Until we have a full and appropriate discussion with respect to this issue, the committee chairs must go to the floor of the Senate to ask for unanimous consent to meet when we are not sitting, so that the entire Senate is aware. It must be aware.
How many committees will meet next week?
Senator Rompkey: Four.
Senator Stratton: Surely to goodness we can manage that process. Notice must be given today, as I understand it.
Senator Joyal: That is correct, according to the rules.
Senator Rompkey: That is if we are going to vote on it tomorrow.
Senator Stratton: We give notice today and vote tomorrow. Let us do that. I think we need to. We should, if nothing else, respect the rule until we have a full and appropriate discussion on it.
The Chairman: I understand that this pro forma motion has been the norm now, and the researchers do not know for how many years, but for many years, brought in at the beginning of every session. It may well be that one particular committee chairman may have abused the privilege.
Senator Stratton: I just named one example.
The Chairman: I do have some concerns about doing anything that requires unanimous consent in the Senate these days because it may well be that such consent will not come about. We can never assume that it will happen.
Senator Stratton: This has been brought here not because of just one example. There have been continuing examples of committees meeting without due notice when we are not sitting. That is the problem. Until we deal with that issue, we should follow the rule out of respect for it.
Senator Rompkey: If I may just comment again, the point I was making was a temporary suspension while we examined the rule. We may have a discussion in this committee and decide that the rule should stay. We may have a discussion and decide something else. We should give this committee time to examine it in some depth and to have the kind of discussion we are having today, if we could suspend the rule temporarily.
Senator Stratton: You are breaking the rule that you are examining.
Senator Rompkey: No.
Senator Stratton: Fundamentally, on principle, that is wrong.
Senator Rompkey: This has been a practice.
Senator Andreychuk: There are four committees you have identified. Surely, it is not a great problem to stand up this afternoon and give notice. If there is no unanimous consent, we vote tomorrow or Thursday. We have time.
Mr. Robert: Senator Andreychuk, in relation to your point about giving due notice, if you look at rule 95(2), you will see that there is something quite peculiar about it. It reads as follows:
When the Senate adjourns for a week or less, a select committee may sit on those days over which the Senate is adjourned if notice of the intention to meet during the adjournment of the Senate has been given to the members of the committee...
That is how the rule is framed now. In some sense, for those who have an interest and are not members of the committee, the rule may not satisfy their demand for information about the activities of the committee.
Senator Andreychuk: I appreciate that.
The Chairman: That is the present rule.
Senator Andreychuk: However, if it is within that time, as you are saying, it is the obligation of the senator to track it. However, I think there is a presumption that we will not have committee meetings during the weeks that we are off. If we do not have proper notice, how do we cancel our activities? I am obliged to be here when the Senate is sitting unless I have a justifiable reason to be elsewhere. However, I can be away on the weeks we are off. That is why there is a problem.
The Chairman: If I may interject, the rule is quite interesting. If notice of a committee meeting were sent on Friday, over the weekend, that was improper notice by our rules anyway. Once again, rule 95(2) reads as follows:
When the Senate adjourns for a week or less, a select committee may sit on those days over which the Senate has adjourned if notice of the intention to meet during the adjournment of the Senate has been given to the members of the committee one day before such adjournment.
Such a notice should have gone out on the Wednesday of the week, rather than the Friday.
Senator Di Nino: Honourable senators, my sympathy lies with Senator Joyal's statement earlier. I generally plan to attend what we have referred to in the Senate as public business the days and the weeks that we do not sit. I am committed to two events next week. I try to do such things on Fridays and Mondays. That creates a problem on the odd times when we sit on a Friday or a Monday. That is fine. I must accept that.
Before I make my comment, I just wish to have a clarification: I understand that if notice is given but unanimous consent is not given we can vote on the floor of the Senate to allow the motion to be accepted. Is that correct?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Senator Di Nino: Thus unanimous consent is only —
The Chairman: Only if they want to vote that particular day.
Senator Di Nino: In effect, we are saying that if four committees want to meet next week, they could give notice today, and if unanimous is not given, then we will vote either tomorrow or Thursday and give them the authority to sit. The argument that is being made to take a look at this because of the repercussions that it would have for each and every one of us is a good one. I would think that we should leave the rule as it is for now, not suspend it, and take a look at it as soon as possible and deal with it.
As I was listening to the arguments, all of which are quite valid, there are things that we can do that change the rules that would allow this issue to be much more flexible. My sympathy is with not suspending the rule at this time.
The Chairman: I have a question to put forth, if I may, and then a suggestion. The Human Rights Committee and the National Defence Committee are regularly scheduled to meet on Mondays, according to our regular calendar. Would this constitute notice for rule 95(2), or would they have to give notice every week by the previous Wednesday?
Senator Di Nino: Monday is a sitting day. Monday to Friday are sitting days.
Senator Joyal: Next Monday is a holiday.
Senator Rompkey: I just wished to ask Mr. Robert when the practice of suspending the rule began and why we have a rule that we always suspend.
Mr. Robert: I do not know when the practice of suspending the rule began as a regular feature of the Senate's activities. We have not had the time to do as much and as thorough research as we would like to do on the practices with respect to rule 95.
The Chairman: Senator Rompkey would like to recommend, pending a final report on this order of reference, that these two rules be suspended. Would the committee agree to a report saying that these rules would be suspended for next week only? Committees have already planned to meet next week and have their witnesses all lined up. We could do it in one fell swoop rather than have each one of them stand up individually and ask for leave.
Senator Bacon: If those committees wish to meet, they could seek permission from the house tomorrow, and we would not have to suspend the rule. I am reluctant to temporarily suspend rules that already exist and that people should respect while we are discussing them, even just for a week. People should abide by the rules while we are discussing them.
Senator Stratton: I agree.
Senator Di Nino: As a consequence of that, honourable senators, it would be nice to have four committees stand up today and say, ``Notwithstanding that the Senate is not sitting, we will meet next week.'' It would be on the public record. It would be of some value.
The Chairman: I sense a consensus around this room that we will not deal with this matter today and that these committees will have to carry on.
Senator Pépin: I have been on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, and we sat every Monday in July and August. It is true that it was never mentioned anywhere, but we have been doing it. It would be interesting to at least have it tabled.
The Chairman: The Senate is administering a slap on the wrist to some of these committee chairs.
We will now move on to what was actually on our agenda for today. We are meeting to discuss the matter of tabling of reports with the Clerk of the Senate when the Senate is not sitting. A number of reasons for this practice exist, apparently, including anticipation of a lengthy adjournment preventing the timely release of a committee's work, media strategies, impending prorogations, to name just a few that we may want to consider.
This question has been the subject of a recent ruling by the Speaker, who determined that having passed a motion to the effect, permitting the practice, the Senate had expressly permitted the practice and that its privileges, therefore, had not been breached. Our objective today is to begin to determine whether the practice ought to be continued as it is, whether it should be modified in any way or whether it should be abolished outright.
Mr. Robertson, our clerk from the Library of Parliament, is prepared to clarify any points that arise from the briefing note that I assume all honourable senators have received. We also have with us Ms. Diane Boucher, who is the Director of Communications. She will describe the impact on media coverage that releasing a report late in the day has. Mr. Robert is here to perhaps give us some background on the issue.
If the committee will excuse me, Senator Andreychuk will chair this for a few minutes. I have to attend a press conference on Kyoto. I will be back almost immediately, or in half an hour.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Robert, do you have opening comments?
Mr. Robert: All honourable senators are aware of the Speaker's ruling. The practice of giving committees the authority to deposit reports with the clerk seems to date back to 1982. The first committee in the Senate that was given that authority was the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada. It deposited its report with the clerk on a sitting day. However, the Senate had adjourned mid-afternoon, and the report was deposited with the clerk in the evening of that same sitting day. For obvious reasons, it was a big splash.
Since then, the practice has gradually grown. In the current Parliament, for example, numerous committees have been given the authority to deposit reports with the clerk, but not all of them take advantage of that. In this particular Parliament, there have been numerous occasions when reports have been deposited. Most of them occurred this past summer when the Senate was not sitting. Last spring, a report was deposited with the clerk on a sitting day. There was some comment raised on it, as was mentioned in the Speaker's ruling, but no point of order or objection was actually lodged.
The practice has not been to restrict the authority or allowance of the committee with respect to deposit. There is no indication in the authority that is given to the committee that it can only be done within certain circumstances. Despite the understanding that senators may have as to how the rule should be properly applied, the motion as it is passed by the Senate imposes no restrictions, and it is completely within the discretion of the committee to deposit its report with the clerk if it feels that it has the authority to do so.
The Deputy Chairman: May I have some clarification on this point, please? You are saying they get this authority. Does that take place when committees are being structured, a part of those series of paragraphs that we go through very quickly? Or is it in regard only to specific or special studies?
Mr. Robert: It is for specific studies. So far as I am aware, it has never been granted to a committee for dealing with a bill, or any matter that must require a subsequent debate on the report by the Senate. It is really only for reports that can properly be tabled in the Senate.
Senator Joyal: Perhaps I am too Cartesian, Madam Chair.
Let us start with the principle. What is the fundamental principle at stake here? Let us start with that, after which we can look at the exceptions. An institution is based on principles. If we make exceptions here and there, at the end it does not mean anything.
What is the fundamental principle we must follow in interpreting the meaning of allowing a committee not to table its report in the Senate during a sitting of the Senate? I include myself in this because I might have voted for such a provision at some time without having paid too much attention to it. I say that in front of Senator Rompkey.
What is the principle and what are the various degrees of awareness that the Senate has to have as a chamber that a committee is its own emanation, working on behalf of the Senate and reporting to the Senate? It is not outside the Senate context. What is the principle and how is it interpreted? I ask so that we know exactly what we are doing.
The Deputy Chairman: The steering committee has raised the issue of the difference between tabling a report and presenting a report.
Mr. Robert: Under our practices, a report that is tabled is for information purposes only. It does not necessary require a debate of the Senate to either consider the report or to adopt it.
What often happens is that we table reports. As an example, I remind you of the recent report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology dealing with health care. That report was tabled. There is no obligation on the part of the Senate to subsequently debate it.
Senator Rompkey: What about the Auditor General's report?
Mr. Robert: That is a report filed with the Speaker, under the terms of a statute, as opposed to an order of reference that has been given to a standing committee of the Senate to report to the Senate.
There is a statutory obligation to deposit certain reports with the Senate, but this is a different matter. This is something that falls within the exclusive purview of the Senate. The Senate has given a mandate to a committee to study something and now that committee is saying: ``We have done the job. We have discharged our obligations to make the study.''
The Deputy Chairman: Often, we are guided by the clerks. I have never really thought about the difference between presenting and tabling. In fact, I did not know there was a difference. I just signed the form, regardless of what it said, and presented the report. What I was intending was to have a debate in the Senate. I did not realize that distinction existed in the rules. I believe that is something else we will have to address.
I apologize for intervening, Mr. Robert. Perhaps you can now answer Senator Joyal's question.
Mr. Robert: Under rule 97, if a report is tabled, it is easy to trigger a debate on its consideration by subsequently moving, as often happens, that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate. The distinction between presenting and tabling is for hairsplitters.
Mr. Armitage: Anything that requires an action or decision of the Senate is presented. I refer here to reports on bills or budgets, or reports requiring the powers of the Senate.
Senator Stratton: What is tabled, then?
Mr. Armitage: ``Tabled'' means that a decision of the Senate is not required, meaning you do not need the approval of the Senate. If you are tabling, it is for the information of senators.
For example, pursuant to rule 104, a committee tables its expenses from the year before. A decision of the Senate is not required. If a committee is tabling a report on illegal drugs, for example, it is because it has been given an order of reference and is saying, ``Here is the information and our recommendations.'' An action by the Senate is not required.
Senator Joyal: The same holds for the tabling of a report from a parliamentary delegation.
Mr. Armitage: That is it precisely.
Senator Joyal: It is a matter of information, not a matter upon which a decision of the Senate is needed to put something into action.
Mr. Armitage: The steering committee raised it because they were wondering whether there was a fundamental difference between the two. That is why Senator Andreychuk wanted to add to your question, Senator Joyal, this question: Is there a fundamental difference to senators between the two different types of reports with respect to the issues that are involved with this particular order of reference? The idea is that you would not be presenting a report on a bill in the same way the Social Affairs Committee tabled its report because you are bringing the bill back to the Senate for its consideration. Is there a difference between that and the health care report?
Mr. Robert: The traditional practice has been that if the Senate or a legislative body gives to one of its subordinate creatures or entities, a committee, a mandate to look into something, either a bill or an investigation, then it is entitled, by right, to be the first one to know what the results of that study are. If it is a bill, then the Senate has the right to know what the committee will recommend with respect to that bill, that is, some amendment, no amendments or no progress. If it is a study, the same thing holds true.
To some extent, the problem arises from the fact that the sittings of the Senate, unlike some other legislative bodies, are not as frequent. If you were to look at the United Kingdom, you would see that there does not seem to be a practice in the authorities that creates a distinction between depositing a report with the clerk or not. It does not seem to exist. However, the House of Lords and the House of Commons each sit 140 days per year. There are other factors that come into play, particularly with respect to the notion of the report either being tabled or presented. You might imagine that if it is just for information purposes, the question then becomes: Does the Senate wish to maintain its prerogative of having a first view of that study?
The Deputy Chairman: Does that answer your original question, Senator Joyal?
Senator Joyal: If I can rephrase, you are saying that the distinction is that the Senate has the right, to use your own words, to be the first one to be informed of the contents of a report.
Mr. Robert: That is the traditional view.
Senator Joyal: That is the fundamental principle. In the case of an issue, and I put it in the broadest terms possible, that calls upon further action of the Senate, or a further decision of the Senate, then the Senate maintains the principle that it is the first one to see the report.
Mr. Robert: That is right because no presented report can be filed with the clerk. It must be done in the Senate.
Senator Joyal: In other words, just to give an illustration, a committee cannot report on a bill to the clerk while we are not sitting.
Mr. Robert: That is right.
Senator Joyal: There is a lateral wing to that: When the issue at stake needs to be acted upon by the Senate, then it is possible to table the report with the clerk.
Mr. Robert: That is correct.
Senator Joyal: In the House of Lords, there is more time available because the Lords sit a greater number of days than the Senate sits. Hence, we are faced with the issue of allowing a committee to table its report with the clerk, a special committee or a committee. The question becomes whether we want to do that.
The Deputy Chairman: Further to that, if we table reports then we have the ability to move a motion at the end of the process. I think it is almost misleading, particularly for a new senator. For example, if the report is tabled on a Friday or a Monday, it goes nowhere immediately. Then, all of a sudden, it does go somewhere because there is a motion. I have been caught off guard at the end of an interesting debate when a motion was suddenly moved and I have had to reflect whether to agree or disagree. It is almost a back-door way of getting a report approved, and I am not sure whether that is a good practice, either.
Senator Di Nino: I have one point and one question. First, I believe that the practice was originally put into place to deal with long Senate absences — during the Christmas and summer breaks. I do not believe it was intended to be used when the Senate is sitting, so that instead of tabling the report on a Thursday, it would be tabled on a Friday. I really think that is one issue we need to look at. I have some sympathy for Senator Murray's position on that. As a matter of fact, he is right. If a committee is studying an issue — for example, the Social Affairs Committee proceeding through the summer — and the members wish to make the report available much sooner than the time of our return to the chamber, then that scenario should be considered by this committee.
Second, what is the practice of tabling reports in the other place?
Mr. Robert: On page 884 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, edited by Marleau and Montpetit, the House sometimes makes provisions for the presentation of committee reports during adjournment periods by having them filed with the Clerk of the House of commons. This has been done for both individual reports and as a general provision for any committee reports completed during the adjournment period. The guide does not explain the character of the power that is given to a House committee, whether it is qualified.
The point that you raised, Senator Di Nino, suggesting that it was originally intended for long adjournment periods, may be correct but the motion, or the power given to a committee, is not qualified with respect to duration.
Senator Di Nino: I understand that. It would be useful if we could get some information on what the House does and what other legislatures do.
Mr. Robertson: We could check into that. It is my understanding, based on the passage that Mr. Robert read from the guide, that they do not give their committees authority to table when the House is sitting, partly because the House sits a much longer part of the day. Routine Proceedings is often early in the morning, at 10 o'clock. The House also sit on Fridays and Mondays. The report can be tabled at Routine Proceedings at 10 o'clock, followed by a press conference.
In addition, the House does not make a distinction between presentation of reports and tabling of reports. Their Routine Proceedings calls for tabling of reports, so all committee reports are tabled, whether they pertain to legislation, which requires follow-up action by the House, or whether the report is merely on a substantive policy matter, which does not require further action. That is a distinction that seems to have disappeared in the House in terms of their procedural rules.
However, we will clarify the various practices in other legislatures, such as the provinces and regional jurisdictions.
Senator Di Nino: It is still possible for a committee that is working on a report and for one reason or another may ask for permission to table the report at an alternate time. For instance, if a committee were trying to table a report this week, and unable to do so, they could ask the Senate for permission to table it next week.
Mr. Robertson: In fact, they have to do that. There is no rule that permits any committee to table with the clerk or deposit with the clerk. They must get a special order from the Senate to allow them to do that.
Senator Di Nino: Except that now, at each first meeting of the committee, we ask for that in advance.
Mr. Robertson: — as part of the order. However, it is not a general power that they acquire as an organizational —
Senator Di Nino: No. Who remembers how many committees you have asked during the last week or two?
Senator Rompkey: None have been approved to date this session.
Mr. Robertson: The point there could be that — and I think Mr. Robert referred to this — the permission that is requested could have restrictions imposed on it in terms of, for example, not during a week when the Senate is sitting. That would prevent the Friday tabling as opposed to the Thursday tabling.
Senator Stratton: I want to discuss the principles of the issue. Let us also look at the other side of the coin and why we do this. In many instances, it is primarily to hit the media. We did just that with the Social Affairs report. There is one coming up on Tuesday by the National Security and Defence Committee, for the same reason, on the day after November 11. The report will be rather widely read, I would expect. How do we deal with that? That is what we should be addressing today — to understand why we need that to occur, as a Senate, and we do need that to occur, and how we can accommodate that in the best form possible.
It may be that we will have to sit, as we did on Friday, to have that report tabled so that the press conference could be done. Tuesday is an appropriate day to table a report, but nobody will be here next Tuesday. That is the issue that we face, and it is rather urgent that we deal with it. It is important that that report be tabled and released at the appropriate time. It loses its impact if it is delayed.
The Deputy Chairman: Senator Stratton, we have to go back to the principle: Is it a delegated authority from the Senate, thus giving us the right, as senators, to know about the report? If we will not know, then we are the ones that trigger something else. I dispute that every report we do has to have media coverage.
For some reports that we prepared in the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Human Rights Committee, we really did not want to maximize media. Rather, we wanted to diplomatically hit the government sources to have them reconsider policies and practices. If we had done that in the media splash, we would have prompted defensive action by the department.
For one study with former Senator Stewart and Senator Di Nino, had we gone public, the government may have handled it differently, but because we asked the issue, ``Are you contemplating, every time the European community expands, the affect on Canada?'' the department replied that they do not do any analysis. However, because we tabled our report in an open way — not in a controversial way — they changed all their practices. We accomplished what we wanted to do on a public policy basis. Not every report needs media. I do not believe that we have had an honest debate as to whether that is the most appropriate way to make the Senate credible. If we think it is, then we might change our rules. I think that is part of the principle.
Senator Stratton: I think it is critical that we do media on specific studies. This is one study that is coming up that we need to address. I do not think we can sit back and say no because we are examining the rule. I will take the opposite side to Senator Rompkey's argument. We need to address this issue. If we cannot do it Tuesday because of principle, and if senators want the report to be accessible to everyone, perhaps we sit on a Friday and release the report then.
Senator Rompkey: I want to support Senator Stratton in spite of the fact that he did not support me. I am not bitter. I do not hold any grudges.
He is making a valid point. I have been here seven years now. I came in during the Thompson era. I do not know how many of you remember Thompson. We lived under the shadow of Thompson for some years. It seems to me that within the past two years, the image of the Senate has changed.
If you look at some of the research that Ms. Boucher has done over the past year or so showing the negative and positive stories on the Senate, itself, as an institution, you will see there has been remarkable progress. Specifically, I would refer not only to the National Security and Defence Committee, but the health study, the drug study and a number of other studies that have gotten good media attention and good editorials. They have spoken well about the work of the Senate, the mission of the Senate, the image of the Senate and the competence and effect of the Senate. I do not think we should underestimate that.
We are living in 2002. We are not living when the rules were originally made. This is a media age. Whether we like it or not, it is the age of television. We have to be a player in that age. We have to be cognizant of that fact.
While I agree with the principle that the institution should be the first to hear about something that a subordinate body does, we have to make exceptions, as Senator Stratton has said. If it cannot be done on a Friday — it will not be possible next week — we have to be cognizant of that and make some exceptions.
There is a rule. There is a principle to be followed. It is not a hard-and-fast rule. It is not the law of the Medes and the Persians. We should not cast it in stone. We should be flexible enough to know when we have to make allowances.
I would remind Senator Stratton of the study we did in the National Finance Committee last spring on Goose Bay. If we did not have the authority to table that in the Senate, we would not have reported at all. It was a specific issue with regard to a contract at the base of Goose Bay. That is going to be renewed in November. The House of Commons had not dealt with the issue at all. We had hearings and produced the report. That report has gotten a lot of favourable attention. It is being used as the basis to recast what is going on in that particular way.
We could not report before the Senate rose. There just was not any time. Senator Murray asked for permission to table the report after the Senate was sitting. That was in the summer.
There is a principle there, but we have to be aware that we live in the year 2002. We have to be able to accommodate ourselves to that reality.
Senator Di Nino: Honourable senators, we are probably talking about the difference between a blanket authority, which was given at the beginning of each session, versus an authority to ask each and every time a committee feels that it would need that power or that would need to act in that manner. I have no problem with the latter. I believe it is quite appropriate. You could do it the month before or the week before, whenever you think it is appropriate.
We certainly would know. When we sit in committees, we are working with draft reports and we have some general idea when this would be. At the appropriate point in time, the chair could go to the Senate. I like that. At least you are there. It is on the record. You are not just some blanket issue being questioned on what you did.
It is the same idea that we spoke of before on the sittings of committees. You ask for permission. If that is what we are talking about, my sympathy lies with the latter rather than giving blanket authority, which would result in us never knowing if, when and how.
The Deputy Chairman: What you are doing is putting the discretion on the committee as to what communication strategy best maximizes the report for the benefit of the Senate. You are supporting, therefore, the principle that the Senate maintain control.
Senator Di Nino: But still allow this flexibility to be able to take advantage of the opportunity for exposure of media and impact. The best impact, timing, is very important. I cannot see the Senate not giving authority. We are not talking about unanimous consent. We are talking about majority; if you have to vote, you vote. There may be some time where we will be on division, but I can never see a time when the Senate would not give its authority.
Senator Joyal: Since we have Ms. Boucher with us this morning, could we hear from her?
The Deputy Chairman: Yes. Perhaps Ms. Boucher could address the communications and the press issues.
Ms. Diane Boucher, Acting Director, Senate Communications: Honourable senators, when the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration adopted the communication strategy in 1998, it proposed some measures to help committees to be more proactive in their approach to communication. One of these measures was to allocate budget for communication in committees. However, as Senator Di Nino mentioned, in communication, time is of the essence and, unfortunately, Senate tools and communication practices are not necessarily compatible.
An example of that point is that, on sitting days, the media attention is turned towards Question Period in the House of Commons. This means that after 2 p.m. from Mondays to Thursdays, and after 11 a.m. on Fridays, journalists attend Question Period and the scrum that follows, to get the sound bites that they need to do their stories. Therefore, if a committee plans to schedule a press conference on sitting days, it is better to do it prior to Question Period. Unfortunately, this does not agree with the timing of tabling of the reports, which, according to Senate schedule, is usually done after 2 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
Press conferences and press releases on Fridays may be covered by television networks on Fridays, be included in Saturdays', Sundays' and sometimes Mondays' newspapers. Many Saturday newspapers increase their average circulation by sometimes 40 or 50 per cent. This practice, again, is not suited to the non-sitting of the Senate on Fridays.
If we look at the coverage received in the past year by Senate committees, we can affirm that committees who have tabled their reports on non-sitting days in general receive more coverage than those who tabled the report on sitting days. Committees that schedule press conferences receive more attention than those who only issue press releases. Committees that have not issued press releases seldom receive coverage. Building momentum by issuing press releases and informing the press on the evolution of a debate usually brings good coverage once the report is released.
Out of the 3,640 newspaper articles published last year on the Senate, 2,024 pertained to the work of the Senate committees. A non-scientific analysis done in our office showed that 97 per cent of these articles were either neutral or positive, while only 3 per cent were considered negative. Illicit Drugs, National Security and Defence, Social Affairs and C-36 have shared 82 per cent of all media coverage in the past year.
Some people have suggested that we use embargoes to table a report and issue a press release. The Canadian Press will respect embargoes if all other newspapers do. I do not think that embargoes are always respected, so I do not think you would wish to go that route.
Senator Joyal: In other words, we get good coverage of our reports when we are strategic in deciding when to release them.
Ms. Boucher: That is correct.
Senator Joyal: To be strategic, we must choose a time or moment when we are not in competition with other news- gathering situations.
Ms. Boucher: Competition between committee reports may affect coverage as well. It would not be good policy for two chairs to table their report at the same time; it would not be good policy to issue two press releases at the same time. One will dilute the publicity that the other may get.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: I am a bit old-fashioned when it comes to this idea of giving complete freedom to committees in the sense that the Senate has precedence when it comes to committees. I agree that there is a better chance of getting media coverage when the Senate and the House are not sitting.
On the other hand, if each time one wishes to table a report, one has to wait until recess to get media coverage, this means that we will be able to do it only during the weeks when the Houses are not sitting — which does not happen very often.
Ms. Boucher: It was not always the case. Many factors come into play, such as whether or not momentum has been building over a committee's report. Take for example Bill C-36 which was tabled on a day when the Senate was sitting at 1:30 p.m., that is before 2 o'clock, when Question Period starts. The report was tabled at 1:30 p.m. and two minutes later, a press conference was being held in room 130 of the East Building. I remind you that the media were very interested in the report concerning Bill C-36. This was not a report made behind closed doors. Committees often choose not to have media present at their meetings, even if they are hearing special witnesses. They prefer to be left alone during their study and to get media coverage or not later according to the communications strategy they have chosen.
Sometimes, where there has been no momentum building, the committee will want to take no chances in getting good media coverage. If the committee's work has been done behind closed doors, the media will not want to give its report coverage simply because they are not aware of it. They will choose to cover a subject which will probably end up in tonight's headlines or in tomorrow's newspapers. Each case is different. That is why, when a committee is making a study, it is important to decide on the communications strategy before or when while deciding to undertake a study.
Senator Bacon: Often, we discuss communications at the start of a study but only decide how to get media coverage later on. Some committees have let the media cover their hearings. They end up in the headlines, maybe only for a short period, but they still end up in the headlines.
The fact that a report can be filed when senators are not in the House and are therefore not made aware of it troubles me. Rumour has it that a report will be tabled next Tuesday. The Senate is not sitting next week. Senators will therefore not be aware of this report's content. If they are asked questions about it in their respective regions, they will be unable to answer. Must we impose specific restrictions on the filing of reports to the Clerk?
Ms. Boucher: Communications and Senate Rules are often incompatible. One of the solutions I am proposing — and I think that is what the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs has done — is to send a copy or a summary of the report to the office of all senators, one or two hours before the tabling of the report or the press conference.
Senator Bacon: But we are not there.
Ms. Boucher: I know. Take for example the committee's report which is tabled in the Senate at two o'clock in the afternoon. You have it in your hands at two o'clock p.m. and the press conference is held at 2:05 p.m. You obviously have not had the time to read it. So you are not aware of its content before the press conference.
Senator Bacon: At least we have a copy.
Ms. Boucher: That is why one of the solutions would be to send a copy to each senator's office. I understand that there is a conflict over communications and that the rules are giving you problems. My area is communications, and I will obviously try to make my sales pitch.
Senator Bacon: Would it help if there were pro forma sittings to allow the tabling of reports or would it be unhelpful because most senators would not be present?
Ms. Boucher: There is another problem at the communications level. If the House sits for the tabling of a report, as was the case last Friday, you will be accused of not being present when the report was tabled. In addition, you will not be counted as present.
[English]
Senator Rompkey: I have two points. First, I know that not everyone wishes to use electronic communications as a matter of course. Many people would rather deal with hard copy, but the option is there. We do have computers. We can send things electronically, even to senators' homes. It may not be a perfect solution, but I simply wanted to remind honourable senators that we have that possibility available to us.
The second point I want to make regards communications plans. Someone mentioned a communications plan earlier. I was chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration when we put together the communications plan. Moreover, we had a policy of insisting that every committee have a communications plan. Indeed, the budget would not be approved unless the committee showed its communications plan. Part of the budget was set aside for the communications plan. I simply make that point to emphasize the fact that in the past, and hopefully now, we have emphasized communication as part of our role and as a necessary part of doing business in Senate committees. That is a good idea and one we should maintain.
Senator Joyal: Senator Rompkey made my point on the availability of reports over the Internet for senators, wherever they may be. That is a valid element in consideration of the issue.
I am trying to reflect on the line that Senators Di Nino and Bacon have put forward, which is that when the Senate is adjourned during summer or Christmas break or another long period there should be some flexibility in the system. I think all honourable senators would agree that if a committee is coming to term in mid-August and feels the moment is appropriate in terms of its communication strategy, there should be the possibility of releasing the report.
Where I am less at ease is during the sitting of the Senate, that is, the weeks that we are sitting. During a week in which we are adjourned, the committee should know ahead of time if they plan to release a report. If they want to release their report next week, they should inform the Senate, and the Senate should be called upon to concur, because we are sitting.
It might be a very good strategic moment to release a report a week in which Parliament is not sitting. The obvious reason is that there is less competition in the other place for media coverage and so forth. I do not dispute that. However, we should know ahead of time that that would be happening.
As much as I am concerned about the flexibility that should exist during long periods of adjournment, I am also concerned that there be flexibility during the week that we are adjourned. We had an example last week. If a committee wants to table its report on a Friday, for the very good reason of press coverage, it should seek the support of the Senate.
There should be a distinction between the two contexts. The flexibility needed should be recognized. However, when the Senate is sitting, or when we are only adjourned for a week, we should retain our authority and our interest to know about the issues and consent accordingly.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: First, one cannot insist too much on the fact that we should be increasing communications use in the Senate. This is the year 2002. If I have anything to blame the Senate for, it would be that it is too discreet on that level.
Second, I agree with what Senator Joyal has said, but since we are all there on Thursday mornings, if a report must absolutely be tabled and made public, why not be told in advance? Let the senator report and ask for the Senate's authorization to table his report on Thursday morning. When the House is not sitting, it clearly is not the time to do it.
Following the study on the health of Canadians made by the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, some reporters asked me why we had not tabled the report on Thursday or on Monday, since you get better media coverage on those days. Senators wishing to hold a press conference could table their report on Thursday morning while making sure that all senators receive advanced notice.
[English]
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: I see that Thursday morning may be a problem because the Senate does not meet Thursday morning. It would therefore need to be tabled in the Senate Wednesday night, which brings up the problem as to when and how the Senate gets its best publicity. Is there anyone else who wants to speak to this subject?
Senator Andreychuk: A short point on communications. I am not quite clear why Friday is such a great day. I am sort of supporting that, but I should like to know more about the Tuesdays and the Thursdays.
It seems that we are driven by the kinds of press we have. If there is something sensational going on, like today's vote on the other side, I do not care what our report is on this side, we will not get any press.
What do we lose in the afternoon? We might lose some of the Newsworld-type of media, but the print would have to go to the next day anyway because their cut-offs are pretty early, even with morning press conferences.
The argument is compelling that there should be communications. However, I have not been persuaded that it must be on those days that we are not sitting and in the time that we are not sitting.
Senator Rompkey: On Friday, you get the bang of the weekend. You get a story on Friday and a story on Saturday.
When I was in the House of Commons, I invariably had a press conference or press release of some sort on Friday because I knew the rural papers, in particular, would carry it for the week and the daily papers would carry it for the weekend. You get a summary, a digest and so on. Thursday afternoon or Friday morning gives weekend play.
Ms. Boucher: Fridays are also considered a slow day on Parliament Hill. The House does not sit long. Question Period is not perhaps as hectic as it is on other days. The competition is not as much there.
It is not often that we would have a committee reporting on Fridays. We had the report from the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, but Social Affairs was the only report tabled on Friday. If we look at other committees that had great coverage, most of them tabled their reports on Tuesday.
The Chairman: Mr. Armitage was the clerk for the Committee on Illegal Drugs. Perhaps he could tell us about their plan of communication. They did notify senators, I understand, in good time.
Mr. Armitage: Senator Nolin, the chair of that committee, was very concerned that senators be informed. We were tabling in early September, prior to the chamber returning. There was a strong rumour at the time, and everyone was firm in the belief, that there would be a prorogation. We had the permission to table when the Senate was not sitting.
However, Senator Nolin wanted senators to be as aware as possible of the contents of the report, so he tabled with the clerk first thing in the morning. Prior to that, he circulated to offices of all honourable senators a memo a number of days in advance telegraphing his intent to table and offering a briefing for any honourable senators, or their staff, who were in Ottawa at the time. A senator could attend, or staff, in order that staff could brief a senator on the contents. The contents of the report were available in PDF format, which means it could not be altered electronically on the Web.
That kind of approach recognized some of the concerns that I have heard expressed in the chamber and here this morning. I do not know if that is enough to satisfy the concerns of honourable senators.
The Chairman: At this point, there does not seem to be any more questions or discussion. I will suggest that the committee perhaps meet in camera tomorrow to consider our report on this issue. That will give us the evening to reflect and confer.
Senator Stratton: We must deal with next Tuesday and the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence report on which they want to have a media conference on Tuesday of next week. We should deal with that.
Senator Di Nino: Surely, they could ask permission today.
Senator Stratton: I am not suggesting otherwise.
Senator Di Nino: They could ask permission today, and we would give it to them. They could ask permission tomorrow, and we would give it to them.
The Chairman: We have just decided that we will ask committees to ask permission. Earlier today, we decided to tell the committees to ask permission for just about everything they want to do next week.
Senator Stratton: As honourable senators will recall, when they wanted to do the Kirby report, permission was denied, and we had to sit. Do you want to go through that process again?
Senator Di Nino: If you do it today, you have the week, and you can vote on it.
Senator Stratton: It is fine as long as we have an approach to this. Perhaps that is the best way of handling a situation like this.
Senator Di Nino: For now, anyway.
The Chairman: If honourable senators are agreed, we will meet in camera tomorrow to discuss this matter and a report.
The committee adjourned.