Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of October 21, 2004
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 21, 2004
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:07 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. Before I proceed to the election of the chair, I want to make something clear about the organizational meeting proposed agenda before you.
Senator Fraser has been replaced, by the usual channels, by Senator Pearson as a member of the committee for this meeting. That was done after this agenda was printed.
Senator LeBreton's name has an asterisk beside it as an ex officio member, but she is a full member of the committee, as named by the Committee of Selection.
I make those two clarifications.
As clerk of your committee, it is my responsibility to preside over the election of a chair. Are there any nominations to that effect?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I would move, with pleasure, that the Honourable David Smith be chair of the committee.
Mr. Armitage: Are there any other nominations? I will put the question: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton that the Honourable Senator Smith take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, Honourable Senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator David P. Smith (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Colleagues, if I could have your attention, I would ask you to turn to page 2 of the agenda, the election of a deputy chair. Senator Robichaud has a motion.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I move that the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton be Deputy Chair of this committee.
[English]
The Chairman: I see no other nominations. Is it your pleasure, Honourable Senators, that the deputy chair be Senator Lynch-Staunton?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Congratulations.
We now move to item 3. This is the usual motion with respect to a subcommittee. There would be three members. Do we have a motion to this effect?
Senator Chaput: I so move.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 4 is the motion to print the committee's proceedings and that the chair be authorized to set the number to be printed to meet the demand.
Senator LeBreton: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Item No. 5 is the authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when a quorum is not present. That has the usual wording at the end: providing that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present. Could I have a motion?
Senator Furey: I so move.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Next is the financial report.
Mr. Armitage: I apologize; I did not bring the report with me. The rule 104 report for last year's sessions, including witnesses' expenses, was less than $4,000. I believe it was around $3,900. I apologize. I forgot to put it in my briefcase.
The Chairman: Do you want to deal with that next week?
Mr. Armitage: We can do it next week.
The Chairman: We should have it.
Senator Cools: Absolutely. We must have it before us.
The Chairman: Let us move to Item No. 7 dealing with research staff. Members are familiar with this standard motion. I do not think we need to read it, unless anyone has any questions. Do I have a mover?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I so move.
The Chairman: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 8 is the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. Again, this is a standard clause. Do I have a mover?
Senator Andreychuk: I so move.
Senator Robichaud: After the question in the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have a question in relation to the second paragraph, ``... be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee.'' Does that mean the chair and the clerk or the deputy chair and the clerk?
Mr. Armitage: My understanding of the intention of this is that ``individually'' would have the effect of saying that individually the chair, individually the deputy chair, individually the clerk of the committee. I understand what you are saying. If the word ``individually'' were not there, having the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee together might imply that the two of them together acted as one person. The reason for using the word ``individually'' was to give the authority to each individual.
Senator Robichaud: Maybe we can look at that later on the committee. I see the phrase, ``...and the clerk.''
The Chairman: Was this raised at the Foreign Affairs Committee?
Senator Robichaud: Yes. We questioned if it was one of the officers and the clerk. I think it was interpreted in that way.
The Chairman: We could make a note to review that down the road at some point.
Senator Cools: While we are making notes, at some point in time perhaps this committee could review all of these motions, because these motions have grown like Topsy over the years, and some of them, to my mind, are not really kosher, but every chair repeats them at every new session time and says that they are standard and so on. However, they should be looked at from time to time because it was not too long ago that an organizational committee began with one or two motions. They are increasing in number a little more every year.
I have great difficulty with some of them, and I have raised objections to them.
The Chairman: This one has now been flagged.
Senator Cools: I am supporting what Senator Robichaud has said. We should look at all of them. Quite often members vote on these, and then six months later they try to do something and they are told that they cannot do it because of one of these votes. We should know what we are voting on, and we should pay careful attention to these. Since this is the Rules Committee, we should really look at what is considered to be standard, what authorities are being handed out and what authorities are intended to be handed out.
The Chairman: I do have a motion in the meantime to adopt the motion. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Item No. 9 is regarding travel. That is self-explanatory. Do I have a mover?
Senator Chaput: I so move.
The Chairman: Are all agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Item No. 10 is the designation of members traveling on committee business.
Senator Cools: That is one of the troublesome motions. We have raised it time and time again, and the previous one, too, Senator Robichaud, with respect to travel. I have known of circumstances where, wherever there is an opportunity, the chairman chose to go himself or herself.
Senator Stratton: This committee does not travel.
Senator Cools: I am talking about travelling to conferences in many different places.
Senator Stratton: I understand that. This committee generally does not do that.
Senator Cools: Maybe it sends individuals.
The Chairman: We have noted your concern.
Item No. 10 has been moved. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Robichaud: We will deal with item No. 10 with the understanding that we will examine at that motion also.
The Chairman: It will be on the review list.
Senator Cools: The travel item will also be on the list.
The Chairman: Item No. 11 deals with the travelling and living expenses of witnesses. This is a standard clause. I doubt that it will have much application here.
Senator Robichaud: I so move.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Robichaud. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 12 is the electronic media coverage of public meetings. I think you are all familiar with the fact that this does happen from time to time. I know there has been some interest in coverage of the code issue. We have the motion before us. Do I have a mover?
Senator Furey: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
I might have Mr. Armitage speak to Item No. 13. It is my understanding that this clause has been the procedure. It has been the de facto reality, but it has not been de jure. Would you clarify what has been happening?
Mr. Armitage: I would be happy to do so. In anticipating this session and in dealing with the logistical requirements following the dissolution of a Parliament or a prorogation, I noticed that a number of transcripts had been produced. It is a practice that has been carried on by this committee, on a fairly regular basis, of in camera meetings.
My understand is that those transcripts were used by the clerk and the researchers to the committee to assist them when working on relatively complicated minutes or draft reports. The distribution of those transcripts was restricted to only to the clerk and the researchers, but afterwards there was no order of the committee to dispose of them in any way. It is noted that they are in camera transcripts and they are stored in an archive somewhere. It seemed to me that the committee had not taken a conscious decision to have those transcripts prepared. They are of immense benefit to the clerk and the researchers; there is no question of it. However, it would be some comfort, to me, as the clerk of the committee, to have the committee acknowledge that we are doing this and for the committee to give me some direction as to how they are to be handled afterwards.
The motion here suggests that they be destroyed once the order of reference is discharged because most of their contents will have been reflected in the work that you end up producing, or there are times when, session to session, an order of reference is likely to continue. It could be decided by the next incarnation of this committee that it needs them or it does not. I believe you can be pretty secure in the idea that the researchers will have reflected their contents in the drafts.
If you refer papers from one committee in one session to the next, that situation would be captured. I do not think it would be necessary to keep these transcripts. I would like to have permission to destroy them so that they are not floating around and are inadvertently disclosed at some future date by some accidental process.
The Chairman: When would you destroy them?
Mr. Armitage: That would be the decision of the committee. There is a suggestion in this motion, but it is entirely the decision of the committee as to how you want to dispose of them.
The Chairman: It is my understanding that these transcripts are helpful to the staff.
Mr. Armitage: There is no question that they are.
The Chairman: In fact, this has been the practice, and they are being kept appropriately. You will have a better comfort level if the de facto modus operandi has been sanctioned by the committee, which seems appropriate to me. That is without getting into the issue of whether to destroy or not to destroy.
Are there any further comments or questions?
Senator Cools: I have some questions and some commentary. I must tell you that every part of me bristles whenever I hear suggestions to destroy evidence. I am not convinced that these committees have the power to destroy evidence. They do not own the evidence. They do not own the proceedings. The proceedings are owned by the Senate. This business of destroying evidence is something that has crept into our system and it is growing. I would caution senators to stamp it out forthwith. As a believer in the common law tradition, I have a real problem with destroying evidence.
I would also like to say that this institution has almost 140 years of evidence in camera that is still stored right in these very buildings. For example, all during World War II, there were many in camera meetings.
I have a real problem with this. If people see fit, perhaps we may have to deal with this in the chamber one day. I would caution very strongly against destroying transcripts of committee proceedings.
The other issue I would like to raise is based on something that the clerk said and something that Senator Smith said. It seems to me that the purpose of minutes of proceedings is to assist senators. I have a few problems with the articulation of the issue as being useful or needed by the staff and by researchers.
I read committee proceedings quite extensively. I would submit that the primary purpose of proceedings is to assist senators, and these processes should not be viewed as incidental or unimportant administrative matters. If we do not want minutes of proceedings around, then we should not print them. We should run in camera meetings like we used to do years ago, which was that everybody cleared out and there was no record. You cannot suck and blow at the same time. As soon as a record has been created, then it belongs to all of us as a whole.
The other question I would like to raise is that, over the past many years, it has become increasingly difficult to put your hands on these in camera proceedings. I have a problem with that. I do not believe that staff and the chairman only should have access to some of these things. These belong to members.
Just let the record show that I oppose very strongly the destruction of any evidence here or anywhere else under any circumstances. I was raised in a common law tradition.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: My understanding of an in camera meeting is one where no record is kept, audio, visual or written. If it is done, it is in lieu of note taking by our researchers and staff. It is to make sure that what is said about rules, which can be sometimes complicated and contradictory and certainly technical, is clear to them. The authority is given in those cases to record the exchanges, limit the distribution of the transcript to the researchers and the clerk, and once the work is done based on those transcripts, they should be destroyed. We are helping them do their work. I do not think it has anything to do with evidence as such. I agree that evidence taken in an open hearing should be kept somewhere in perpetuity, but these are really transcripts in lieu of working notes for clarity purposes, and I am all in favour of this policy and I hope it continues.
Senator Furey: Senator Lynch-Staunton has said what I wanted to say. I concur with what he said.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the transcripts of in-camera meetings are kept simply for information purposes for a certain amount of time. They do not become the official minutes of the meetings. These minutes are not submitted to the committee again but rather are reflected in the decisions that have been made and have been submitted to the main committee.
How could we ensure that these minutes reflect exactly what was said if they are not destroyed and if they have not been submitted to the committee again for adoption? Personally, I do not think these minutes constitute a record of this committee's meetings. They have not been submitted to the committee for adoption, is that not correct?
I agree with Senator Lynch-Staunton that at meetings where notes are taken, these notes are of a temporary nature and they should not serve as the official minutes of these meetings. If they were to serve as minutes, then as a senator I would have the right to request the minutes of these in-camera meetings and that could complicate things.
I have no problem with them being destroyed because as far as I'm concerned they do not constitute a record of this committee's meetings.
[English]
The Chairman: I do not have at this point a mover of this motion. I see that the motion has two clauses. I am assuming that Senator Cools might wish to vote against the second clause. If someone wishes to move it, we could vote on the two clauses separately.
Senator Cools: I would suggest that we postpone the conclusion on the issue for another meeting or two.
Senator Stratton: May I ask why?
Senator Cools: I think we need some more information.
Senator Stratton: What would that be, Senator Cools?
Senator Cools: It has to do with the propriety of the destruction of proceedings. The committee does not own the proceedings. They are proceedings. They are not working notes. I have read many of those. They are called, ``committee proceedings.''
Senator Lynch-Staunton: They are not recorded anywhere.
Senator Cools: In camera meetings are recorded all the time in proceedings, verbatim, every word exchanged.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: No, they are not. I have been to in camera meetings that have not been recorded and in camera meetings where there have been no translators.
Senator Cools: That is different.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is still an in camera meeting.
Senator Cools: I am talking about the proceedings. When you look at the document, it says at the top ``proceedings of the committee.'' I have no problem with individual notes. My problem is with ``committee proceedings.'' There are many records around here of in camera committee proceedings.
Senator LeBreton: Perhaps, chair, the solution to this would be to move the first portion of No. 13 and leave for further discussion the second part about the discharge of the information.
Senator Cools: I am not prepared to go with that one either.
The Chairman: I will give you an opportunity to vote against it.
Senator Cools: You will give me an opportunity. I am pleased.
Transcripts are different from individual notes. A transcript is a verbatim recording of the committee proceedings. I am not satisfied that these transcripts should be used only by the chair and the researchers. They should also be used by the entire committee and any other senator who wants to use them.
I have a few problems with both of them.
The Chairman: Senator LeBreton has moved the first clause. Did you wish to speak further?
Senator LeBreton: If, in fact, as Senator Lynch-Staunton said, there are no minutes for in camera meetings, then the second part is redundant. However, if we are to have a record, then the way around this discussion would be to move the first portion of the motion.
The Chairman: You are moving the first portion.
Senator LeBreton: Yes, I move the first portion only.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: If I have understood this correctly, in approving the first part of this motion, we are in fact accepting that there be minutes for in camera meetings. I thought that some members of this committee were not entirely favourable to this motion?
[English]
The Chairman: I understand that is what we have been doing. The initiative for this to be on our agenda came, quite appropriately, from the clerk. We have dealt with some rather complicated matters.
Senator Robichaud: I do not disagree with that.
The Chairman: In such cases, having transcripts is warranted, especially when we have lengthy in camera meetings. It is difficult for the staff to stay on top of things without transcripts. This is an organizational meeting and to ensure that everything is dealt with appropriately, this motion was suggested. That is why it is before us.
Senator Robichaud: If we accept that, then we will continue the practice.
The Chairman: We will continue the practice. We are not initiating anything that has not been, in fact, the modus operandi.
Senator LeBreton: By moving the first part only, we leave unresolved what is to be done with the transcripts after they are used. That is also fine because we are retaining the status quo.
The Chairman: If senators wish to have time to think about the second part we can revisit that later.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: If we are to have in camera meetings with transcripts that remain permanent, why have in camera meetings? The transcript will remain and be available.
Senator Cools: The only committee chairman that I have known in recent times who treats in camera meetings as being for senators only has been Senator Murray. True, in camera meetings used to mean only senators would be in attendance. Then, it was expanded to mean something else. We must remember that an in camera meeting is based on the notion that members can exclude whomever they want from a debate at any given time. Senator Murray, until a few months ago, chaired the true in camera meetings as we used to know them.
If this motion is to proceed, then we have to consider amending it to include a phrase so that members of the committee have access to the transcripts. I differentiate between transcripts and minutes, Senator Lynch-Staunton. Transcripts are usually verbatim and minutes are sometimes a summary of the proceedings. However, minutes still remain official.
This is a huge issue that has to do with the notion of proceedings in Parliament; so perhaps we should look at it more deeply. I have no problem if the committee chooses to move the first part of the motion, although it is odd to cut out a motion in half. That half should be modified because I have an enormous problem with being told that records that exist are only to be looked at by the staff and the chairman.
The Chairman: We have a motion properly before us, although we do not have an amendment. You are entitled, Senator Cools, to move an amendment.
Senator Cools: I suggest that we research this whole phenomenon of committee proceedings in greater depth. There is disagreement as to what in camera meetings have been recorded.
The Chairman: I sense a consensus to deal with the first half of the motion, although I could be wrong.
Senator Cools: You are quite free to act out what you see fit.
The Chairman: There is a motion on the floor. Does anyone else wish to speak to the first half of the motion?
Senator Cools: Are we recording today? I like records. In fact, I am a lover of records. Common law tradition is based on the notion of respecting records.
I would say that this motion before us is not properly in order. The motion is that the committee vote on an issue and arrive at a conclusion that has the effect of blocking members of a committee from access to a record. There is something very wrong with any motion that asks members to essentially surrender their Parliamentary rights or Parliamentary duties.
Members of Parliament have not only a right to review the record but also a duty to review it. I have serious problems with a motion that states that records are to be produced but members of Parliament, on committee or others, should not have access to them. Perhaps that does not bother some of you but, in principle, it bothers me greatly.
With all due respect, I do not believe that either the committee or the researchers have a bigger task to perform in respect of public duties than any other individual member here. Records are produced because we are a public body and members are to access that information to assist them in exercising their duties.
I find both motions offensive to the rights and privileges of members of Parliament.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Are minutes kept of an in camera meeting?
Mr. Armitage: Yes.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Are they made public?
Mr. Armitage: The minutes of an in camera meeting usually reflect the time the meeting started, the members present and the official decisions of the committee in the process of its deliberations.
Senator Robichaud: The discussions are not made public.
Mr. Armitage: That is right. Only the agreed decisions taken by the committee, should there be any.
Senator Cools: Those are the minutes and are not the transcripts.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Are transcripts an obligation for an in camera meeting or are they at a discretion?
Mr. Armitage: It is certainly at the discretion of the committee.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: If we do not want a transcript of a meeting at any time then we are not obliged to hold an open meeting. We should retain that distinction.
Senator Cools: We do. However, once a transcript is made, it is made.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: A transcript is made to help people follow through with the decisions of the committee.
Senator Stratton: There may be a discussion on the issue again to re-verify what was said at a previous meeting or previous meetings. I am on the other side in this case, Senator Cools. I believe that such transcripts should be destroyed. If they are not destroyed, people will be reticent in what they say at a meeting.
Senator Andreychuk: I would like some clarification. If we are following this logically, the chair must at some point authorize these transcripts. I do not recall that happening. I was a deputy chair when that was supposed to have happened. Now we are being asked to pass a resolution to destroy these transcripts.
The Chairman: At the moment, only the first half of the motion has been moved. If someone wishes to move the second half, they are open to do so.
Senator Andreychuk: This is generic, but we are talking about a specific case. I do not recall ever passing such a motion. Senator Joyal has been in the committee as long as I have been. Did we do what is in the first paragraph?
The Chairman: No.
Senator Cools: Never.
The Chairman: That is why it is before us today. This was initiated by the clerk, which I think was the appropriate thing for him to do. The modus operandi we were following was not done pursuant to a motion. Rather than be in that never-never land, we decided to clarify the situation and to have a discussion, which is what we are doing.
I am satisfied that to have these transcripts is helpful to the staff. I do not see how anyone is adversely prejudiced by such a practice. I am quite comfortable with this motion that has been duly moved by Senator LeBreton. At the moment, no one has moved the second half, but we can put that over, if there is a consensus to do that.
Senator Andreychuk: For the record, if we are moving it for the future as a generic clause, I have no problem with it because every one of us will have an opportunity at that time to know what the process is and to question the chair at any time.
I would like to know how we got ourselves into the position of having these transcripts, because I do not recall that having been the subject of an authorization or a discussion. I would like to know whether some action was taken before we go to the next step. However, I realize that is not part of the motion.
Senator Stratton: As a long-time serving member of this committee, I do recall us discussing and deliberately recording the fact that we would have minutes of such meetings.
Senator Cools: Could I find out from whoever is proposing this concept what authority in parliamentary procedure we rely on to destroy records?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: We are the master of our own decisions. If we decide that we do not want these transcripts, it is our right to dispose of them, that is unless someone can quote from Beauchesne's or from God knows where to indicate that we are in the hands of some unknown parliamentarian somewhere who says that we cannot do so.
The Chairman: I will ask the clerk to respond to your question because he has done a review of these matters.
Mr. Armitage: I do not want to appear to be entering into debate. The Rules of the Senate give committees the power to print. If you look at item No. 4 on your agenda, you are being asked whether or not you choose to exercise that power. That is to print your public proceedings. In thinking about this and trying to devise an appropriate motion, it appeared to me that, if you have the power to choose whether or not to print, you are in control of what you do and do not produce in this committee. That is, you have the choice of whether or not it becomes public.
In camera transcripts are a record of your private discussions. The Rules of the Senate provide a framework within which you are able to meet privately under certain rubrics. It is for you to decide whether or not you have the control adequate to decide upon the disposal of those transcripts. My assumption in trying to draft this was that you did.
Senator Cools: This is a novel situation because what we have now is a debate going on between staff and senators.
The Chairman: No, he has not entered into a debate.
Senator Cools: He just said that he might enter into debate.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: He said he will not enter into the debate but he wanted to clarify.
Senator Cools: But the proposal is his proposal.
The Chairman: It has been duly moved by Senator LeBreton.
Senator Cools: The authority that is given to a committee that it only has certain powers is given to it by the Senate chamber. I would submit to you that, yes, the house has given the power to print or not to print, but I would submit that that power does not extend to, once having been printed, to destroy. There is a body of opinion on this issue.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Transcripts are not printed.
Senator Cools: They are.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: ``Printed'' is when you get a little white book that states ``Proceedings of...'' That is printed. These are transcripts. They are not even edited. The blues are not even sent out.
Senator Cools: The transcript certainly is verbatim.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: The transcript is what is being done right now. There may be errors in spelling because they are being produced quickly. There may be an error in understanding a word or maybe an error in the translation. Those go into the blues. The blues then come to us and that goes into final form. These transcripts do not go there. They go straight from there to him.
Senator Cools: They are not published.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: They are not printed.
The Chairman: Senator Cools, the draft motion to destroy has not been moved. We are only dealing with the first half.
Senator Cools: Perhaps we should look into this a little bit deeper. This matter has been canvassed before and the body of opinion has supported that these documents are not to be destroyed.
Senator LeBreton: In the first paragraph the intent is clear. There is no intent in the first section to destroy. That is something that the committee can decide at a later date. The first part of item No. 13 is very clear. It is time to put the question.
The Chairman: I will put the question on the first half of the motion that has been moved by Senator LeBreton. All in favour? Opposed?
Senator Cools: Opposed. Let the record show not only that I oppose it but I oppose it strenuously.
The Chairman: I think we assumed that, yes.
Senator Cools: I wanted the record to show it. I like records.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I would like to move the second part of item No. 13.
The Chairman: We have a motion from Senator Lynch-Staunton to move the second portion. Is there a discussion on that?
Senator Cools: I have said before —
The Chairman: Senator Cools are you seeking the floor?
Senator Cools: I thought I was.
The Chairman: You have the floor.
Senator Cools: Thank you. Perhaps this committee should consult with people like Mr. Jerry Yanover and others in the other place who have, over the years, expressed strong opinions about committees not having the power to destroy records. I do not understand the speed or the hastiness with which this question is moving; nor do I understand why it is even before us.
Having said all that, I would reiterate that it is not within the power of committees to destroy evidence. In addition, I would reiterate that it is not proper in a common law tradition to go around destroying evidence. Maybe there is some confusion as to when a proceeding is recorded and when is a transcript a transcript, and so on.
Perhaps some of these issues seem trite and trivial to many, but I would submit that, to the extent that these two propositions are totally novel is the reason that we should canvass them more thoroughly.
I began by saying that every year two or three or four more new propositions just appear and people vote on them. If it is new and novel and it is innovative, then perhaps we could have taken a little bit of time to consider it.
I have enormous problems with the fact that these records will not be accessible to members of the committee.
The second part, as I said before, it is quite beyond our ken, quite frankly. However, people vote against their own parliamentary self-interest everyday. Go ahead and do it. It is okay with me.
The Chairman: If there are no other speakers on the motion before us, I will put the motion.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Cools: I want a recorded vote on this.
The Chairman: Will those in favour —
Senator Cools: Which one are we on now?
The Chairman: The second part.
Senator Cools: What are we calling it?
The Chairman: We can call them 13(a) and 13(b).
Mr. Armitage: The normal process is to follow a roll call vote.
I will call the names. The Honourable Senator Smith.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: The Honourable Senator Andreychuk.
Senator Andreychuk: I disagree.
Mr. Armitage: The Honourable Senator Chaput.
Senator Chaput: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: The Honourable Senator Cook.
Senator Cook: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: The Honourable Senator Cools.
Senator Cools: Disagree.
Mr. Armitage: The Honourable Senator Furey.
Senator Furey: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: The Honourable Senator Joyal.
Senator Joyal: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: The Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: The Honourable Senator LeBreton.
Senator Stratton: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: The Honourable Senator Pearson.
Senator Pearson: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: The Honourable Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: It would appear that the motion has passed, Mr. Chairman, nine to two.
The Chairman: Carried.
We now move to item 14, the time slot for regular meetings. This fall, we will have a fair volume of work dealing with the code of conduct. I am wondering whether or not, on Tuesdays, it makes sense to keep the option open to start at 9 a.m. as opposed to 9:30, if necessary. If it is not necessary, we could start at 9:30, if that is agreeable.
Senator LeBreton: Since I am involved in this, this will have to be with the permission of the whips. We will have to consult Senator Losier-Cool.
Senator Cools: For years the tradition here has always been to start committees at 9:30 rather than 9 a.m. because it gives members a bit more leeway.
Senator LeBreton: The chair was suggesting that if there is a heavy workload we might start earlier.
The Chairman: If there is a heavy workload.
I know many people — and I only purport to speak for myself — think if we can finalize whatever will happen with the code of conduct by the Christmas break, then that would be a reasonable goal. There has been an ad hoc subcommittee chaired by Senator Fraser. Senator Di Nino and I have been on it. We have spent many hours on it over the summer and we have prepared a draft.
We will need a lot of discussion and debate. I am thinking that, out of an abundance of caution, we may want to preserve the option of starting at nine o'clock to give us a little more time. If that is not agreeable, then we do not have to do it. You would need to speak to the whip.
Senator LeBreton: Yes. We will leave the committee time at 9:30 a.m., with the understanding that, if we think that we have a really heavy workload then, on a case-by-case basis, the two whips will have to agree that we can sit at 9 a.m. and not 9:30 a.m.
The Chairman: Can we word that in some way to include the occasions when we want to advance the meeting to nine o'clock?
Mr. Armitage: You need not necessarily take a decision on this, although it would certainly be good guidance for the steering committee.
Senator LeBreton: We do not need a motion.
Mr. Armitage: To change the time to 9 a.m., as Senator LeBreton said, we would have to consult the whips.
Senator Stratton: That is in case there is a conflict on one side or the other.
The Chairman: You will be able to chat with your whip easily.
Senator LeBreton: Yes, but there is another whip involved on your side.
The Chairman: That completes item No. 14. There is an understanding that there will be some consultation and, hopefully, a consensus that, if we are pressed for time and need an extra 30 minutes, we can start at 9 a.m., with agreement.
Item No. 15 is other business and consideration of a draft budget, which has been distributed. It is the usual lean draft budget. Do I have a mover?
Senator Chaput: I so move.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed
The Chairman: Our next meeting will be on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. when we will hear from Mr. Gary O'Brien, Deputy Clerk of the Committee. Perhaps you might speak to the proposal, but it relates to tabling a report.
Mr. Armitage: When the Senate agrees to change its rules, the deputy clerk comes before this committee to show how that decision is reflected in the new version of the rules. In the last session sections of the rules were changed related to the Senate administrative rules passed by the Internal Economy Committee. Mr. O'Brien would like to have your approbations so that he can have distributed a new copy of the reprinted Rules of the Senate.
The Chairman: The other item, which is our highest priority, is a discussion on the next steps in respect of the code of conduct. It does not have any official status, but its workings have been blessed by both caucuses. I anticipate both caucuses will want to have a special meeting on the draft report, which has not yet been filed. We should try to arrange that in the near future to ensure that we have a comfort level vis-à-vis our respective caucuses.
We spent many hours grappling with a number of issues, and our discussions were not remotely partisan. We have not followed the House in some instances and in other instances we were on the same track. There has been some controversy in the other place, as you know. I anticipate we will try to determine our direction on the issue..
Senator Joyal: If we are to circulate a draft proposal, would it be possible to have a copy of the questionnaire that the Ethics Commissioner in the other place has prepared for their circulation?
The Chairman: Are you referring to the 18-page questionnaire?
Senator Joyal: Yes. It follows along with the code of the House. I did not check whether the commissioner has produced ``a sanitized report'' of some statements. I would like to read the code, the questionnaire and an example of a sanitized report. Then, when we approve the code, we will know in which direction we are headed.
The Chairman: We have the 18-page report and the clerk will distribute it. I have seen it.
Senator Joyal: The sanitized report is of great importance to me because it is the resumé of what will be published. In fairness to all senators, we want to know where we are heading when we say yes. We want to know what the end result will be.
The Chairman: There is a date by which he has to file it.
Ms. Margaret Young, Researcher to the Committee: I am not quite sure, senator, what you mean by ``sanitized report.''
Senator Joyal: I refer to the report that will be made public.
Ms. Young: No public summaries will be available until the deadline has passed and the first batch has been reviewed and signed off.
An example of the public disclosure summary will be made available. I am sure that that will change; it is not final. That can be supplied, if you wish. I do not believe it is final.
Senator Joyal: I would like to see what it is. When we had provincial commissioners coming to testify when were debating and studying the matter, we had examples of provincial ''sanitized'' — to use the word used at the time — reports, which means a resumé, what is in the public domain. I would not like to base my judgment on what the provinces are doing, but on what we will be asked for, what we can expect will come out. Even though the sanitized report is not yet finalized, at least we have an indication, and it should be part of our consideration because we might want to take a stand on the final form.
I will make it very plain. I want to know where I will be at the end of it. I want to know about everything I will be called upon to give to the commissioner. I do not want to wake up one the morning and be told, ``This is now your report. You accepted it when you accepted the code.'' That is not what I want.
The Chairman: Do we know the date?
Ms. Young: Early in December is the date for final filing of the confidential report, but we will not see the summaries that are filled in until a considerable time into the New Year. The Ethics Commissioner, I understand, will release them. He will not wait until all 308 public summaries are completed, but he will release them in batches. That is my understanding.
All I can give you at this time is the form, which I think will change.
Senator Andreychuk: Just as a point of information, on Tuesday, will you deal with the draft from the committee of three and then have it go to the caucuses?
The Chairman: We will discuss that.
Senator Andreychuk: We have not seen it.
The Chairman: We have not reached any conclusion on that because Senator Fraser could not be here today, and she chaired it, and Senator Di Nino was not able to be here. I thought it would be inappropriate to come to any conclusion about where we go until those two are here, and I believe they will both be here on Tuesday. We can have a discussion at that point.
Senator Furey: Will we have an opportunity to see it before we come to the meeting to discuss it?
The Chairman: We will not have it before Tuesday. You will certainly have the form. That could go out probably later today. That is the form that the MPs had to fill out, for those of you who have not seen that yet. We will discuss where we go from here. It is important that both Senator Fraser and Senator Di Nino are here for that, and they will be.
That completes the agenda for today. We will meet again on Tuesday.
The committee adjourned.