Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence, February 24, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 10:05 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, as clerk of your committee, it is my honour and responsibility to preside over the election of the chair to this committee. Are there any nominations to that effect?
Senator Smith: I nominate Senator Oliver.
Mr. Armitage: Are there any other nominations for the position of chair? If not, are all agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: Senator Oliver, will you please take the chair?
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Next is item 2 on the agenda, election of a deputy chair. Do I hear a nomination? Senator Andreychuk, do you nominate Senator Smith?
Senator Andreychuk: I nominate Senator Smith, with delight.
The Chair: Are there any other further nominations? If not, I declare Senator Smith deputy chair of the committee.
As you know, we must have a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Is there a motion to that effect?
Senator Nolin: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Nolin moves:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair, and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule witnesses.
Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 4 is a motion to print the committee's proceedings. As honourable senators know, this clause is standard in these founding meetings. Will someone move that item?
Senator Losier-Cool: I so move.
The Chair: It was moved by Senator Losier-Cool that the committee print its proceedings and that the chair be authorized to set the number to meet demand. All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Concerning item 5, as honourable senators know, quorum for this committee is five, although there are four members for the committee. Will someone move the authorization to hold meetings to permit evidence when quorum is not present?
Senator Andreychuk: I so move.
The Chair: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 6 is financial report.
Senator Milne: I move that item.
The Chair: Senator Milne moves that the committee adopt the draft first report prepared in accordance with rule 104, which is a report saying what was spent by the committee in the Second Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament. The amount was high, over $28,000 for this committee. All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Corbin: I have a question. Obviously, we have presented five reports, as far as I know. What was the fourth report all about? There is no reference on it here.
Mr. Armitage: It was an administrative report in respect of reporting a budget. I included the substance.
Senator Corbin: There was no sixth report?
Mr. Armitage: Not that I recall.
The Chair: Item 7 is research staff. As you know, it is commonplace for the committee to assign analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist the committee.
Senator Nolin: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Nolin moves that item. All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 8 is a standard motion. Will someone move that item, pursuant to section 7, Chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules?
Senator Losier-Cool: I so move.
The Chair: All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Corbin: Before you go any further, may I ask for clarification? Is anything in this procedure different from the procedure we used previously? Can the clerk respond to that question? Is there any change in the wording?
Mr. Armitage: To my knowledge, no; we are following the standard organizational meeting agenda. The only item that may not be standardized throughout committees is item 14 with respect to in-camera transcripts. Not all committees necessarily use in-camera transcript, but we use the standardized motion that has been used by the other ones.
Senator Corbin: Thank you.
The Chair: Item 9 is travel. The motion is:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Will someone move that motion?
Senator Duffy: I so move.
The Chair: All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Number 10 is the designation of members travelling on committee business. This clause is standard. Is anyone prepared to move that item?
Senator Corbin: What is ``committee business''?
Mr. Armitage: It is as defined in our attendance policy, sir. If you participate at a seminar or give a presentation on the work of this particular committee, the steering committee will designate you.
Senator Nolin: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Senator Andreychuk: For clarification, when we put this item in a couple of years ago, it was not to preclude senators from attending other things — they use their own Senate budgets for that travel. However, if they represent a committee, they go through the steering committee, et cetera, and that is what leads to the motion in item 10. It is to standardize the process of designation.
The Chair: That motion is carried. Number 11 is travelling and living expenses of witnesses:
That, pursuant to the Senate guideline for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization, and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair will be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
The clerk has already indicated that rule is standard. Is there a mover for Motion 11?
Senator Milne: I so move.
The Chair: All in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Number 12 is electronic media coverage of public meetings: that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the committee's public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings at its discretion.
Senator Nolin: So moved.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. The time slot for regular meetings is next. I am told this committee has been meeting at 9:30 on Tuesdays and 12 on Wednesdays. Those times have been assigned.
Senator Corbin: In connection with that item, what are the meeting rooms? Will we still use room 160-S, as we have in the past, on Wednesdays, and room 356-S on Mondays?
Mr. Armitage: That is the current schedule. I have asked about an alternative room in the Centre Block, 256-S for this time block, in case it is available. I think it is more comfortable for the staff. This room is available. I inquired whether we can use 256-S, because the committee is large with 15 senators, and the bank of tables at the side of the committee table is appreciated for the staff.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We should do what we can to get a bigger room. We should be able to move around the back without tripping over everyone. I think that this is really not the best room.
[English]
The Chair: We are agreed on item 13.
Number 14 is in-camera transcripts. Perhaps I will ask the clerk to say a word about this item:
That the chair and deputy chair be authorized to request transcripts for in camera meetings be produced, when deemed necessary, for the use of the chair, deputy chair, the members of the committee, the clerk of the committee and its analysts in accurately reflecting the discussions of the committee in minutes and draft reports; and
That these transcripts be destroyed at the end of a session.
Mr. Armitage: I initiated this item a number of years ago, with the agreement of a chair at that time. When we take transcripts of in-camera meetings, it is usually for the purposes of the staff to ensure we have everything that the senators and the committee said, and that we accurately reflect what was said in the reports we draft or the minutes we prepare. At the end of the session, they end up going into the archives, and I am not sure how wise that is, first, in terms of the space they take up. These are your in-camera deliberations. I thought it would be good if the committee had a practice of, first, authorizing the taking of transcripts, to ensure that is a conscious decision, and then that you make a conscious decision to have them destroyed once the session is completed so that your private words remain private.
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
Senator Corbin: Keep them on computer disk. It does not take much space.
Mr. Armitage: Then it is a question of certainty. These transcripts are meant as an administrative tool, and I had a concern about them being kept in the archives going forward, and your expectations of privacy with respect to the in- camera discussions you have had.
Senator Andreychuk: Other committees have in-camera meetings, often around drafts of reports. Specifically, when we were working on the conflict of interest guidelines, et cetera, there was some merit, because of the technicality of the subject, in having transcription and then destroying it.
What are other committees doing about in-camera meetings at the moment? I thought that case was specific when we introduced the rule. We now have it as the standard for this committee, and I want to know what the standard is for other committees.
Mr. Armitage: As the director responsible for Debates Services, I can say that the increase has been significant among committees in the use of in-camera transcripts. The practice is a fairly widespread now.
Senator Andreychuk: Is that for keeping them, or destroying them?
Mr. Armitage: It is for taking them in the first place. I hope that committees are conscious of the issue and that they consciously take a decision one way or the other, rather than leaving the transcripts to pile up without being addressed.
Senator Nolin: Why destroy them at the end of the session? Why not leave the option open?
Mr. Armitage: That is an option. I use this one as a default because presumably, at the end of the session, the prorogation has happened and the agenda has been wiped clean.
Senator Nolin: We may initiate work, and we want our colleagues who succeed us to benefit from that work. It would be their decision.
Mr. Armitage: We keep all the work by the library analysts and the work I have done as the clerk recording the decisions of the committee. It is simply the blues that are destroyed, what was said verbatim, your private discussions among each other.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: I notice that members of the committee will have access to the blues of in-camera sessions. Is that saying that they will be automatically distributed to committee members or that they will be available to honourable senators on request?
Mr. Armitage: On request.
Senator Corbin: On request only?
Mr. Armitage: Yes.
Senator Corbin: So can I request that all in camera transcripts be sent to me?
Mr. Armitage: That is a committee decision, Senator Corbin.
Senator Corbin: Why not distribute them automatically? Generally, the most constructive discussions are held in camera.
Mr. Armitage: Yes.
Senator Corbin: Public sessions are more placid.
Mr. Armitage: You can amend the motion and specify that documents be distributed.
[English]
Senator Duffy: For clarification, would this include testimony by witnesses who testify in camera, or is this only of committee member deliberations?
The Chair: Committee members.
Senator Milne: Does this mean that, for example, in-camera discussions of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs are also kept unless we specifically ask for them to be destroyed? Perhaps we should keep this item in mind in the other committees.
Mr. Armitage: It has been my concern all along that you address this matter consciously so you are aware that these transcripts are being taken and that the committee decides what it wants done with the transcripts at the end of the session.
Senator Andreychuk: It was our understanding when this item was added that the chair and the deputy chair were authorized to decide that matter, in consultation and in discussion, but that they would advise the committee. That is at the point when you can jog your memory and decide if we want them destroyed at the end, et cetera. I hope we continue to do it that way and that the chair and deputy chair disclose that decision to the committee.
The other issue is that if you prepare transcripts, every senator has access to them.
Mr. Armitage: The committee needs to make that choice. Do you want to limit access to the blues to the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk and the analysts?
Senator Andreychuk: Those are some of the decisions that need to be made and disclosed. In one case, we said the blues would not be circulated, but anyone who wanted to see them, meaning any senator, not only committee senators, could make an appointment but we would not circulate copies.
The Chair: That is what Senator Corbin said.
Senator Andreychuk: Yes, but I am saying it goes beyond committee members to any Senate member. Those decisions have to be taken.
Senator Corbin: I meant only committees.
Senator Andreychuk: It may go beyond that, which it did the previous time.
Senator Corbin: This issue is important. The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented a report on Africa a couple of sessions ago of Parliament. The issue came to the floor on the House of Commons to the effect that the report had never been adopted formally by the committee before its presentation to the Senate. That procedure occurred during an in-camera meeting for which there was no transcript whatsoever. People were scratching their heads, accusing each other and insinuating that there was no formal motion for the adoption of that report, therefore, the report should not have been on the floor of the House of Commons. We had the carnival of the last two sessions, in that respect.
Transcripts of in-camera meetings are important, in my opinion, and they should not be destroyed. There should be a transcript and it should be kept in the archives until the whole matter is resolved by the full Senate. Otherwise, we have these needless little battles, which are destructive. Will you take that matter into account, please?
The Chair: I heard Senator Andreychuk suggest that the chair and the deputy chair should not do anything unless they disclose the same to the committee. Senator Andreychuk, do you suggest an amendment to item 14 to say that the chair and deputy chair be authorized to request transcripts for in-camera meetings be produced, and disclose same to the committee?
Senator Andreychuk: No, I put that trust in the chair and the deputy chair to take whatever decisions on whatever issue they deem appropriate, but let us know what the rules are. That is all.
Senator Smith: It should probably be the steering committee, which is made up of three people, in case there is a tie.
Senator Andreychuk: I think the atmosphere is collegial enough here. Let us leave it at that.
Senator Milne: I was completely unaware of this matter. It should be circulated to the chairs and deputy chairs of all committees so that they are aware that these transcripts are kept, and that they should consciously pass a motion to destroy them at the end of each session.
The Chair: In terms of ``destroy,'' I have heard the representations of Senator Robichaud and Senator Corbin. Senator Corbin, on the last line, where it says, ``That these transcripts be destroyed at the end of a session,'' do you want to see language such as ``Only on the instructions of the committee shall these transcripts be destroyed at the end of a session?''
Senator Corbin: Yes, that wording makes more sense because the end of the session does not necessarily mean the end, especially if we are dealing with a report that will be adopted by the house. For that reason, we want to keep these things in the archives for a while, until the house has disposed of the matter.
Senator Smith: I think I agree. I know there has been a different tradition, but the African situation is a good example. I also want our clerk to be able to sing that song ``I've got the blues.''
Senator Milne: The only problem with leaving the decision to the committee to destroy the blues at the end of each session is that we do not know when the session will end, and when it ends the committee no longer exists, so it is too late; it is after the fact.
Senator Andreychuk: That is why we left it.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: But we must remember that no decisions or conclusions from an in camera meeting are accepted until they are reported to the committee, right? Nothing is official until the committee accepts —
[English]
The Chair: Out of camera. Exactly.
Mr. Armitage: Technically speaking, the reason you have a clerk of a committee is that they take the minutes of your decisions. If the clerk of the committee, using the transcripts or working without transcripts, files a set of minutes saying that you took this decision and this decision, the expectation is that your clerk has accurately recorded the deliberations of your committee.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Can you repeat that? You are talking about an in camera session, are you not?
Mr. Armitage: Whether the session is in camera or in public, committee decisions are recorded by the clerk and printed with your minutes.
Senator Robichaud: But the committee always has to accept the clerk's record, does it not? You may be understanding things differently, but the committee still has to decide. But I do not want to complicate matters.
[English]
Mr. Armitage: As far as I recall, no committees routinely go over the previous decisions of the committee and approve the minutes. The minutes are accepted and printed by the chair.
Senator Corbin: Can we have the clerk, after discussion with the steering committee, report to the full committee from time to time that he sees no further use for retaining the transcripts of certain in camera meetings, and that he seeks the committee's permission to destroy them?
The Chair: I like that idea. That means we can take the last line out, namely, ``That these transcripts be destroyed at the end of a session.'' That amendment overcomes the problem that Senator Robichaud has recognized for us. It puts the burden back on the clerk, which is where the buck stops: that is, on instruction from the committee. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All those in favour of item 14, as amended: that we delete the clause, ``these transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session''?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Item 15 is next?
Senator Smith: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Smith has moved the adoption of the regular budget. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next, under ``New Business,'' I want to make a brief remark that I am delighted to be elected chair of this committee.
Senator Corbin: What did we do under budget?
Senator Nolin: We adopted it.
Senator Corbin: We do not have the budget yet. We are doing things here blindly. This is important. I know it is routine, but we need to see it.
Mr. Armitage: Because this committee has a regular time slot at lunch on Wednesdays, I have projected forward a few meetings with lunches.
The Chair: Senator Smith, now that you have seen the budget, are you prepared to so move?
Senator Smith: Yes. I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Motion carried.
Senator Milne: Do we have a motion to report?
Mr. Armitage: We already have a motion to report, rule 104.
The Chair: Under ``other business,'' I want to say that I deeply appreciate having been elected to be the chair of this committee. I thank you for the confidence the committee has placed in me to be the chair. I am new to this committee and I do not know much about it. I ask you to bear with me while I do more study. I did not ask to be on this committee, but I intend to work hard, and I intend to consult frequently with Senator Smith, who I am delighted you have elected to be the deputy chair.
I have reviewed the work of the committee over the last few years. This committee is large, with 15 members. This committee has considered a wide range of issues in years past. To cover many of the things that are still not resolved by this committee will take a lot of hard work from us all. I do not know how much longer this session will last or how long I will be chair but when I leave, I hope that every honourable member of this committee can say that at least, I was fair. I want to have a list system so that when I see an honourable senator that wants to speak, I will put the senator on a list and take speakers in that order so that everyone can be heard on all issues.
With that, I look forward to working with all of you on this committee. I hope that we can have a general discussion now in camera about some of the things that people want this committee to consider over the next session.
Senator Smith: I am pleased to be deputy chair, and look forward to it. I want to mention item 13, but I do not suggest we re-open it. I was advised by the clerk that Senator McCoy had objected to the time of the meeting and asked whether it could be rescheduled. My thought was, if the meeting had been scheduled at a totally different time from our usual meeting time, she might have had a point. However, since it was scheduled at our normal meeting time, I did not feel it was appropriate to object to it proceeding. I will chat with her out of courtesy, but the clerk did receive the request from her. I think that when a committee schedules its meeting at its normal meeting time, there is nothing inappropriate about that time.
Senator Nolin: I am waiting for the in-camera part.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that we go in camera?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Why are we going in camera?
[English]
The Chair: We have our most candid and frank discussions in camera and there may be some issues that honourable senators would like to throw out to see if they have merit.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I understand your position, but the meeting can be public.
Senator Nolin: I have no problem with that.
[English]
Senator Nolin: I will raise my point in public.
Senator Corbin: Strictly speaking, if an in-camera session is foreseen in today's business, it should be on the agenda. It is not on the agenda, strictly speaking, but I am wide open. You can have it, if you want.
The Chair: I want to hear from Senator Milne and Senator Andreychuk.
Senator Andreychuk: Public.
Senator Milne: Public as far as I am concerned.
The Chair: I withdraw the request to go in camera. Senator Nolin, please.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: For months, if not years, a number of us, unofficially and often while discussing the matter in twos and threes, have asked ourselves about the way the Senate does things, its procedures and its relationship with the other place.
We are certainly aware that a number of organized politicians want to change the very nature of our institution, and some of us have concluded that some changes could perhaps be made. As we wait for these more substantial changes to appear on the horizon, it is perhaps appropriate for us to look at what we can do internally to improve our institution and make it more effective.
In the previous Parliament, the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration agreed to establish a subcommittee to examine these issues from the standpoint of that committee's mandate.
I also know that some members of the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament have expressed the view that this committee could also consider such changes.
I therefore propose that the subcommittee of the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament consider establishing such a subcommittee. Perhaps it would be appropriate for us to consult our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to see if they also have an interest in forming such a subcommittee.
In that way, if the proposal is accepted, the two committees could work jointly. I would volunteer to be part of that effort, of course.
Senator Corbin: Can I ask Senator Nolin what he means by ``making the Senate more effective''? Could he go into detail and give us examples of things that could be changed?
Senator Nolin: Here are some examples that have come up during the famous informal discussions. Do we have to have a question period? Is the Senate too partisan in the way it operates? Do the leaders on both sides drive Senate operations?
Make no mistake, it is the leaders on both sides who decide the agenda and the scheduling of debates. These questions deserve to be considered: do we stay with the status quo in the way we conduct business or do we look at different ways to make the Senate more effective?
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: The chair and the deputy chair can take this matter up with the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. The initiative last time came from Internal Economy, and the chair of the Internal Economy Committee came to the Rules Committee to talk the efficiencies that could be made through internal economy and those that could be made through a rules procedure. Our mandate covers a certain subject area. We need to canvass what the two committees can or should do.
The Chair: The chair of internal economy is also a member of this committee.
Senator Andreychuk: We can sort that out. I am sorry that Senator Joyal is not here but he and I have an initiative that has come to this committee, and was commenced in committee. He has a bill relating to the Public Service Commission and the application of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is part of the human rights aspect for staff and employees on the hill that came out of the Vaid case. I put in a motion to canvass how we treat the Charter rights of all on the Hill because of political immunity, et cetera. That issue was started in this committee. Senator Joyal and I made presentations, and we started a plan of action of witnesses, et cetera, that I understood the steering committee was to put forward, when we shut down. Senator Joyal has introduced his bill and I have introduced my motion. I do not think we will speak at length in the chamber because we have done it so many times that we will ask to have it referred to this committee. With the concurrence of the chamber, it will come here. I hope one of our earliest initiatives will be to continue with the study of that bill and the complementary motion.
The Chair: Senator Losier-Cool please.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: I would like to go back to the question of establishing a subcommittee. I understand that the mandate of this subcommittee would come from the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. According to Senator Nolin's answer to Senator Corbin, it would be our committee's mandate.
But I would like the subcommittee not to be called a subcommittee on Senate reform. To improve the efficiency of our institution, fine, but let us dispense with the word reform for a while.
Senator Nolin: I am raising the possibility and making the proposal because I know that, at Internal Economy, they have started. . .Someone needs to start. The details will become clear in due course but I think that it is important for us to try to leave no stone unturned in seeing what we can do better, do differently, in order to make the Senate more effective.
I do not see it constrained by conditions, by time or by budget.
Some Hon. Senators: Ha, ha!
Senator Nolin: I say that because, at Internal Economy, it was one of the concerns — and rightly so.
My instinct tells me that there are things that we could do. The Rules of the Senate are definitely at the heart of Senate operations; if the rules have to be changed, our committee will see what it can do. That is why I feel that a productive discussion between our steering committee and Internal Economy's could chart out the course between them. Then, we will decide how the subcommittee will be appointed.
[English]
Senator Milne: I am not a regular member of this committee and will not be, so I should not enter this debate; however, let me tell you that occasionally Question Period serves to pry useful information out of the government. Besides, it is such fun.
Senator Nolin: On that question, senator, after 15 years in this place, I have found that written questions are much more effective.
Senator Milne: They are much more effective if this place puts into position a rule that they must be answered within a certain period of time.
Senator Nolin: Everything is possible. The rules are the law of our institution.
Senator Smith: At this point, we have an interesting suggestion. I do not think we need to decide today but it is good to have it out on the table. On something like this issue, it is probably appropriate for us to dialogue with our house leaderships on each side. You can do as you see fit. I am open-minded, and I think, probably, this discussion will carry on at the next meeting, and we can pick some brains in the meantime.
Senator Corbin: I have been here a long time and have seen the place evolve. I think there was an effort to turn the Senate into another House of Commons, and that is part of the problem that irritates Senator Nolin. We want to go back to honest-to-goodness senatorial basics here. That is why I can wholeheartedly support Senator Nolin's proposition.
I think we should also examine the role of the Speaker of the Senate, who is a government appointee, after all. We are all government appointees, but normally a house picks its officers, including its —
The Chair: At one time, a senator brought in a bill.
Senator Corbin: Namely yourself, Senator Oliver. We operate on a daily basis with a list of authorized questioners and speakers. This list is not in the spirit of what the Senate is all about. There must be some spontaneity in questions.
[Translation]
Some questions sometimes lead to others and then the Speaker says: ``I have a list and I have to follow it.'' No, he does not. The rules say that, if a senator wants to ask a question, he rises in his place and the first to rise in his place must be recognized by the Speaker. That is the sort of thing we should look at, it seems to me.
In one sense, it does not bother me one way or the other because I am leaving the Senate in 159 days. But I am distressed by the way in which I have seen the Senate evolve into a kind of second House of Commons and that is not at all the image that the Senate of Canada should have.
Senator Robichaud: I second Senator Nolin's motion that discussions should be held between this committee's steering committee and Internal Economy's, just to test the waters and to see how we could move forward. I support the proposal 100 per cent.
[English]
The Chair: There seems to be strong support for the suggestion. It will be taken up by the steering committee, which will report back at the next meeting.
As you know, I am new to this committee. I call on the clerk to tell us about some of the issues that were unresolved from previous times and other things that are urgent and pressing that perhaps should be considered by the committee. Can you say a little bit about the rules and some pending items?
Mr. Armitage: Senators may recall that earlier this session, there was a question by Senator Downe about why the Rules of the Senate last published in 2005 did not reflect recent changes, and he had a good point. The Principal Clerk of Chamber Operations, Charles Robert, has been looking for an opportunity to meet with the committee, and for one reason or another it was not possible to schedule. Then we had the summer adjournment and prorogation. Our rules were last printed in 2005. Two rule changes have taken place since then, one with respect to user fees and another with respect to the name of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The current printing of the 2005 rules is getting low, and the principal clerk wants to meet the committee with the updated rules, and have them tabled and distributed in the Senate chamber as soon as possible.
Two committee reports on substantive matters were outstanding on the Order Paper the last time the Senate met. One was a response to a Speaker's ruling with respect to the procedures for questions of privilege and points of order. There was a report and it was debated, but it did not come to a vote and died on the Order Paper, as did one on the reinstatement of bills. Those matters had been before the committee previously and had been reported back to the chamber but had not been resolved. As Senator Andreychuk has already pointed out, we had a combined order of reference with her motion and Senator Joyal's bill with respect to employees, parliamentary privilege and a range of issues.
The Standing Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators reported amendments to the code in the last session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament, and the amendments were adopted by the Senate. In their report, the committee recommended that the Rules Committee look at parallel changes that might be considered for the rules to accommodate some of the processes in the code.
The Chair: Are you able to say something about the English version of our rules and the French version of our rules?
Mr. Armitage: Senators who have been on this committee previously will know that, when asked or prompted, I have suggested that the current edition of our rules could be revised usefully. The French and the English are not always in complete agreement with each other, and I believe comment on the quality of the French has been passed as well.
There is an inconsistency in the way the formatting of the rules has taken place. There could be a reorganization of the rules to make them easier to follow, if senators wanted. Some of you will remember that Senator Molgat first came as Speaker with a project that was accepted by this committee. He was followed by the Senator Hays. This committee agreed to consider the project in the last session as well, but resources with respect to who would be available to comb through the final version were short then. Things may have changed since then.
The Chair: I want to hear from honourable senators about other issues and matters they want to bring before the steering committee.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: In our fifth report, we recommended, by Senator Corbin's motion, that the implementation of a system of Inuktitut interpretation in the Senate chamber be studied. Since that report has been adopted, should we not be monitoring the progress of the implementation of our decision so that all the work we have done on it is not compromised? After all, the Honourable Senator Adams will be leaving us shortly; he would love to be able to speak in his native language before he leaves.
Is it our role to follow this up and to encourage the Internal Economy Committee to do what is necessary?
The Chair: No.
Senator Robichaud: You do not think so?
[English]
The Chair: No; as I understand it, the report was adopted and its implementation is now in the hands of the Internal Economy Committee and the Principal Clerk of Chamber Operations. They are taking it to the next step, but the report of this committee has been adopted.
Senator Corbin: Have they taken the step?
The Chair: I do not know, but it is in their hands.
Senator Losier-Cool: They are the people we should question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Smith: We should authorize the clerk to inquire.
The Chair: The clerk says he can report now.
The Clerk: I have made inquiries, and I can report that the Principal Clerk of Chamber Operations, Charles Robert, has been in constant contact with Alain Wood, Director, Interpretation and Translation, of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. He has been a witness before this committee. They have been making arrangements and have proposals for the new steering committee to authorize. Once the proposals are authorized, I believe they will be ready to provide a — I cannot define what level of service they will be able to provide, but that will be part of the briefing to Internal Economy.
Senator Robichaud: Will that be when the Internal Economy Committee meets?
The Clerk: That is correct.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Could we ask for a briefing?
Mr. Armitage: Yes.
[English]
Senator Smith: That item should be on the agenda.
The Chair: It will be on the agenda. Are there any other issues?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, I do not have all the details at hand, but was there not a motion in the other place that Senate private member's bills that have been passed be placed at the bottom of the priority list? If that happens, we should look seriously into the situation; I do not feel it is fair.
[English]
The Chair: I will ask the clerk to look into it and it will be on the agenda at the first meeting of the steering committee.
Are there any other matters? Is there any other business to come before the committee?
Senator Corbin: When do you propose to call the next meeting and what do you think will be on the agenda?
The Chair: I want to call the next meeting as soon as possible, but I do not want to do anything until we have a completed steering committee first. As you know, the motion that has passed says, ``after the usual consultation,'' and I do not know if that consultation has taken place yet. As soon as we have a steering committee —
Senator Corbin: It will probably be Senator Robichaud.
Senator Smith: I will try to ensure the consultation takes place. Senator Joyal is not here and neither is Senator Fraser, but I will try to ensure consultation occurs within the next day or two. The third member of the steering committee may very well be Senator Robichaud.
Senator Corbin: You can still have a steering committee with two persons.
The Chair: It would be nice to have a third person. As soon as we have a steering committee, we can meet, draw up an agenda and have a meeting. I want to have a meeting as soon as possible. I recognize our next meeting day is Wednesday, which is tomorrow, so next Tuesday.
Senator Corbin: Can I put a question to the deputy chair? Do you have any objection if we moved Senator Robichaud as a third party to the steering committee meeting at this time?
Senator Smith: No, I do not have a problem with that suggestion. There is the phrase ``after the usual consultation'' and I think we need to respect that, but I have no problem. I am at the hands of the committee.
Senator Andreychuk: We passed a motion that the chair has the conduct of that issue — I cannot find it here — after the usual consultation. I am sure the chair will do so.
Senator Corbin: Get it out of the way fast.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Will there be negotiations on expenses, salaries and other similarly important points?
Senator Nolin: Mr. Chair, with your permission, I would like to look at other points on the agenda. I would like to understand the matter that the clerk raised about the two versions of the Rules. I certainly have the French version down pat, and I certainly am not sufficiently skilled in English to say whether the English version reflects the English language well. But I can tell you that the present French version, our Bible, does not.
I would like to know the steps. Who are we waiting for? Is it about the budget? Do we need to hire an editor for the French text? We have received the clerk's report, but I would like to know what is happening.
[English]
Mr. Armitage: About 80 per cent of the work had already been done, and we did so with somebody from Public Works who has worked with this committee frequently. Ms. Davidson is the senior legal translator from Public Works, and I think Senator Milne might remember her. She did an extraordinary job on the code itself, and she was one of the key people in doing the work that we have done previously on this item.
I am not certain whether she is still available. She may have taken retirement since then. However, with the people we have on staff and the assets we have available to us from Public Works for a job of this profile, I am not sure we would need to hire somebody from outside.
Senator Milne: This is something that I well remember was underway when I chaired the committee, and it is high time it was completed. If I can encourage you to keep at it, please do, because it is an insult for it not to be done.
The Chair: Are there any other matters to come before the committee: anyone, any issue or any matter?
(The committee adjourned.)