Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence, April 25, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 25, 2006
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:40 a.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. Pursuant to rule 88, as the clerk of the committee I will preside over the election of a chair of this committee.
Before I proceed to that, you have all been issued a proposed agenda for the meeting, including a membership change. Just before the meeting we received a change in membership: Senator Merchant will replace Senator Mitchell for this meeting. For the purposes of this meeting and this membership list I thought I would let you know of that change.
I will accept nominations from the floor for the position of chair of the committee.
Senator Smith: I move the nomination of Senator Di Nino.
Mr. Armitage: Are there any other nominations? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt this motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Chairman) in the chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Smith, and thank you colleagues. We will have a couple of things to say in a little while. In the meantime, we will continue with the agenda, honourable senators.
The next item on the agenda is the election of a deputy chair.
I am looking for a mover of that motion.
Senator Andreychuk: I move that Senator Smith be the deputy chair of the committee.
The Chairman: Is there anyone else?
Senator Robichaud: I move that the nominations close.
The Chairman: Thank you.
All in favour? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is my hope that Senator Smith will sit at the front of the table together with the chair. One thing I will insist on to the degree that the chair can is that these meetings always be non-partisan and we leave politics somewhere else, with the rare exception of when we may have a bill or something upon which we may disagree.
We also need to compose a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Do we need a motion for this or just a statement?
Mr. Armitage: It is a motion that you create this committee.
The Chairman: Senator Losier-Cool moves item number 3. If you want me to read it, I will.
Senator Losier-Cool: I move the motion.
The Chairman: Do you have a question, Senator Joyal?
Senator Joyal: I move that Senator Robichaud be part of the steering committee, if I am not pre-empting Senator Losier-Cool from doing it.
Senator Losier-Cool: I was only moving item 3, but I agree with Senator Joyal.
The Chairman: My first question is, are you crazy enough to accept?
Senator Robichaud: If we were to stick to the motion before us —
[Translation]
— which says ``after the usual consultation.''
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: They have, in consultation...
The Chairman: Let me assure you that his name will be considered in consultation. Is that good enough?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Smith: If there are no other nominations, we might consider the consultation to have occurred, but I am open-minded on that.
Senator Andreychuk: I think the point of paragraph 3 is important. It is the chair who determines, in consultation with the deputy chair, in the usual consultations, which included leadership.
If all of that happened before we came here, that is fine. However, I hope that the precedent will continue. I think Senator Robichaud wishes to be sure that everyone has been consulted. My understanding, informally, was that they had been. I think if we move motion 3, then the chair can deem you to be the third member of the steering committee.
Senator Corbin: I was not consulted.
The Chairman: We will certainly do the appropriate thing.
Senator Smith: I know there have been discussions but I do not think everyone has been talked to.
Senator Corbin: Stand number 3 and get on with it.
Senator Smith: We can approve the establishment of it. Until the chair and vice-chair were selected, you really could not have meaningful consultation.
The Chairman: So number 3 is approved, is that correct?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion 4: Is anyone opposed? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Number 5.
Senator Cordy: I move motion 5.
The Chairman: It is moved by Honourable Senator Cordy.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Number 6 is the financial report.
Mr. Armitage: You have a copy of the rule 104 in your package.
Senator Andreychuk: I so move, honourable senators.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Number 7 concerns our research staff.
Senator Cordy: I move that motion, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: It goes on to the second page.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Next is the authority to commit funds and certify accounts, which is item number 8.
Senator Andreychuk: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Number 9 concerns travel.
Senator Tardif: I so move.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Whenever we use this procedure to designate one or several members who will be travelling on behalf of the committee, would it be possible for them to report back to the committee so that all members may know who is travelling on behalf of the committee?
[English]
The Chairman: Does anyone have any thoughts on that? If I understand the question properly, it is to make a report to the committee when a member of the committee travels. I would like to hear from Senator Andreychuk.
Senator Andreychuk: I support that.
I also hope that the steering committee making any decisions that affect the work of the committee would report to the committee. That is the implied process; that the steering committee meets and conducts work, but reports back to the committee. Whether it is on this point or on all points, if we note it in the record that should be enough.
The Chairman: I have no problems with that. I thought that Senator Robichaud's point went further; in effect, that we should include in a report the travels of any member that travels on behalf of this committee where expenses are paid for by this committee. I am happy to accept that as long as the committee agrees with it.
Senator Robichaud: I also support the point of Senator Andreychuk.
Senator Corbin: Does Senator Robichaud's motion imply that if a report is made then the full committee has to adopt that report? Is that the intention of the honourable senator?
Senator Robichaud: No.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Actually, I would ask the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to make an oral or written report to the committee, for information only.
Senator Corbin: Not subject to approval by the committee?
Senator Robichaud: No.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We are now dealing with motion 10.
Does any honourable senator wish to move it?
Senator Losier-Cool: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Discussion?
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Could you explain to me what is stated in paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 13, 1998?
[English]
The Chairman: I will ask the clerk to answer that question.
Mr. Armitage: The senators' attendance policy as published in the Journals of the Senate in 1998 included definitions of what was official business and public business. Senators on official business of the Senate are included in the attendance drafted in the beginning of the journals for that day's sitting if the Senate is sitting.
Senator Corbin: What about public business?
Mr. Armitage: On public business, I am not as certain. It is part of the attendance register as being on public business but I do not believe you are registered in the journals.
The Chairman: I understand that to be the case as well. Public business will list you as not absent but not present in the Senate, that is, away on some business that does not deduct a day from your 21-day allotment.
Senator Andreychuk: Is the difference not that official business is listed in two categories on our Hansard and public business is on our monthly register? It then goes into the public register only but it does not indicate anything to do with the chamber.
The Chairman: Number 2 I think is self-explanatory, so we have a motion.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Number 11 deals with travelling and living expenses of witnesses, which is a standard motion.
Senator Merchant: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Number 12 is electronic media coverage. May I have such a motion?
Senator Robichaud: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: With regard to number 13, before we deal with it, it would be my hope that, to the degree that we can, we tick to these time slots. There may be times when we need to extend or we need more time than we have. My thought and discussion with the clerk — and I have not discussed this yet with the deputy chair — is that if we are going to change, I would like to have some opinion from the members of the committee as to whether it would be acceptable that we anticipate the Tuesday meeting by half an hour or an hour, when necessary, instead of trying to find another time, which is difficult. We have done this in the past. It is so hard, particularly with the makeup of the Senate right now on our side where we do not have enough bodies to move them around. If we are going to need time — and I am not going to make this a rule — I will inform the committee that at such and such a Tuesday we would start at 8:30 instead of 9:30.
Senator Andreychuk: We have to abide by these times spots. If we meet outside them, we have to seek permission of the whips because of the very point that you made, which is that we are sitting on many committees. I do not think we would have a problem if we asked to sit at 9 or something earlier. However, these are our time slots and only these time slots until the leadership is consulted.
The Chairman: I agree with that. I should have said subject to the Rules of the Senate, which state that we need approval from the whips.
Rather than trying to find another time, I suggest that, from time to time, we may want to seek approval from the whips to meet a little earlier, perhaps an hour maximum or half an hour.
Senator Smith: In the last session when we were doing the code of conduct where we had a lot of witnesses, on occasion we had to do something. What we found acceptable more than anything else was a 9 a.m. start or maybe once or twice an 8:30 one. We can make that decision in time to give people notice. That seemed to work better than any other thing, particularly when we had a heavy load of witnesses.
Senator Corbin: That is fine, but how much notice will members get? We have other assignments and if we do not have sufficient warning, it could be problematic for some of us.
The Chairman: My intent would be to give as much notice as possible, certainly a week minimum. I am not talking about phoning the previous day. As we meet, I would say that since we have a heavy agenda I would ask for permission at that time; and the clerk will remind me so that I do not blow that. As I said before, this committee has always been non-partisan and I intend for it to continue in that way.
Senator Corbin: I think we should ban the term partisan and partisanship from our language and that will settle it.
The Chairman: That is agreed.
The next item is the in camera transcripts. There has been some discussion of this in the past. If you have not had a chance to look at it, do you want to take a quick look first before we deal with it?
Senator Corbin: I would add, ``and any member of the committee'' of those authorized to see the transcripts.
The Chairman: I would like to pose that question to the committee. Should it be any member of the committee authorized by the committee, or any member that wishes to see them?
Senator Corbin: I sat on this committee from time to time and I would get the transcripts without even asking for them. What is the problem?
The Chairman: The in camera sessions generally are not recorded. We ask that the deputy chair and the chair be authorized to ask the clerk, in the rare cases where it would be felt necessary to conduct the business of the committee, to take notes that would help us in the deliberations, and that those notes be destroyed at the end of each session.
The suggestion by Senator Corbin raises a question in my mind that would change the intent somewhat by making it so that any and all members of the committee would have access to this. That is fine if that is what we want, but we are talking about what may be otherwise described as secret meetings where, for obvious reasons, we do not take notes or minutes. By making it available to all members, would that destroy some of that intent of the rules — for the committee not to take minutes for that reason?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, if a member of the committee wanted to look at the transcripts, would it not be possible for him or her to speak to the clerk or the chair and discuss the matter in that way, which would avoid circulating the documents to everyone?
Take, for instance, a senator who was unable to attend an in camera meeting; he or she could still get an idea of what went on by speaking to the clerk, the chair or the deputy chair, which would avoid having to circulate the transcripts.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: I want to make sure we are talking about in camera and not about secret meetings, because I think there is a difference. In camera means that you want to have a free and open discussion on some sensitive issue that would cause difficulty if in the public eye. It may cause difficuly to the person that is the subject matter of the hearing, it could cause difficulty to the general welfare of the Senate or whatever else. You can build your reasons why you should have an in camera meeting for the public good. What I do not agree with here is that members not have access to the transcript.
It also raises the point that even in in-camera meetings, as I understand it, any member of the Senate can attend. If that is the case, it cannot be restricted to only members of this committee. We did it before. I think we had this precedent the last time around on the code issue, and I voted against it, but I was in the minority. The majority voted to proceed. I do not know whether it was the exact wording we have here or whether it was different. I think it should be broader to the members. I have difficulty in having tapes that are not made available to everyone who has some responsibility for the issue. That is as broad as any Senate.
I am not in favour of it as it is presently structured, but I was voted down last time.
Senator Smith: I think Senator Andreychuk has characterized the relevance of this issue as having its genesis with regard to the code. When we were developing the code we tried to have a consensus on both sides of the house, and I think we basically were successful there. This agreement required a lot of goodwill, but that goodwill did happen.
There were a couple of instances, and I will not get into what they were, where one particular member had a very different point of view. The fact that one particular member had a very different point of view did not upset the fact that both sides — certainly in terms of the leadership and the consensus — agreed on the major principles. I think the wording of this item came from that reality.
As to where my head is on this, I am open-minded. As a general rule, I do not disagree with the point that is being raised here. However, the circumstances were special and the end result was that nothing unfortunate happened. We did manage to get through that chapter, and I think it was successful. That is the genesis and the rationale for why it was worded that way, to the best of my recollection.
Senator Corbin: I suggest that we deal with this matter on a case-by-case basis if we are going to prevent distribution to senators attending committees. If a case arises where personal interests, prejudice, call it what you want, require that minutes not be circulated, the blues not be circulated, we can deal with it at that time. Otherwise, any senator who wishes to see the transcript after the meeting would be allowed to do so. Let us not overcharge this system, which is already pretty restrictive at times. I am for openness, not for closure.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I was going to make the same point Senator Corbin just made, regarding the fact that we are deciding whether, from time to time, we will be circulating the transcripts or not. For my part, I think we should set that aside and wait for the situation to arise.
[English]
Senator Cordy: There were extenuating circumstances during the last session in dealing with the issues that you had to deal with, but I agree with Senator Corbin that we leave this for now. If need be, we can visit it for particular circumstances.
The Chairman: I do not have a problem with that either. I thought it was important enough to have a discussion on this issue because I understand the sensitivities. I think we have enough of a consensus that we may not need this item right now. If we need it, then we deal with it each and every time that we need it. Does this create a problem for the staff?
Mr. Armitage: My only consideration is that you will come upon an agenda item where the steering committee will decide that you should meet in camera and the meeting will be called without your having the chance to discuss this beforehand. As a result, you will take up 10 or 15 minutes on this item at that time and it will get in the way of the conduct of the meeting. The form and structure is entirely up to the committee. I thought it would be helpful if you had a structure of some sort to begin with. If you wanted to make it more open and then restrict it on a case-by-case basis, that might be more efficient than having to go through this debate at the beginning of a meeting each time this subject came up.
The Chairman: How about if I suggest that we take another look at this and rewrite it for the next meeting to better reflect the wishes of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Since there is no other business that we need to deal with today, I do not think there is a need to have a meeting tomorrow unless someone really wants to have lunch with the rest of us. I suggest we have a meeting next Tuesday. At that time we would bring you a report on the outstanding items from the previous session that were not dealt with or were left in limbo. I also suggest that if we do not need Wednesday meetings, I will not call Wednesday meetings.
The clerk suggests that we should talk about the budget, since we may need a couple of bucks from time to time if we are going to have meetings.
Senator Smith: I think we should hold that over because we will need a little better feel for one particular subject matter.
The Chairman: We are not having lunch tomorrow. For your information, we have been spending somewhere around $16,000 to $17,000 per year, which is principally for the Wednesday lunches. I do not expect any unforeseen expenses for items we may deal with in the future. I do not expect that will change much, but we will bring a budget presentation for next Tuesday as well.
Unless there is anything else, I declare the meeting adjourned until next Tuesday morning at 9:30 a.m.
The committee adjourned.