Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 11 - Evidence, June 16, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedure and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:37 a.m. to study the Senate committee system as established under rule 86, taking into consideration the size, mandate, and quorum of each committee; the total number of committees; and available human and financial resources.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we continue our study of the Senate committee system. I am pleased to welcome Senator Wallin, who has asked to speak to us. Tomorrow, we will welcome Senate Murray, and hopefully next week, we will hear from Senator Andreychuk.
[English]
Our library analysts will be preparing a synopsis of the issues over the summer as well as a summary of the results from the questionnaire. We should be in a position to distribute a full briefing package in the weeks preceding our return from the summer adjournment.
Later this morning, once we have concluded our exchange with Senator Wallin, the working group on the revision of the Rules of the Senate will be meeting to review the draft and what was circulated earlier this spring in order to give feedback and drafting directions to the table officers and the library analysts.
Senator Wallin, welcome to our committee. I think you have prepared some notes. The practice is that after you make your opening statement, for which there is no time limit, questions and comments from honourable senators will follow.
We are delighted you are here. You now have the floor.
Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you. I was working on my notes diligently and sent some of them to translation yesterday. I was told that the translation would not be done until Thursday. We then had another meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence last night, which altered many of the notes because many of the same topics I had been writing about have morphed and changed a bit.
I beg you to read the notes from the meeting last night of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence or perhaps find it on CPAC. I will make references to that meeting.
As a new senator, it has been quite an experience to begin to learn the finer points of the chamber's rules and procedures. I hope with a newcomer's vantage point, my earlier life experience and from my participation as deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that I can offer some useful thoughts and also seek some much needed advice.
We are encountering some very worrying rules and procedural issues with respect to that committee. I hope they are unique to that committee and that this is all an exception to the rule. However, I felt obliged and motivated to put this on the record so that the behaviour at that committee does not set a precedent for others. I hope we can keep that in the back of our minds in our discussion about the questions and issues I raise.
Too often in this particular committee, senate procedure is ignored by the chair, as is common civility, rendering the committee nearly dysfunctional at this very early point. I have been here only since January, and this troubles me profoundly.
The chair's arbitrary secretive style has made my role as deputy chair difficult. I feel that the issues I will try to bring to your attention today are related to some fundamental practices and rules. In this case, rules are being broken, processes are being subverted and procedural improprieties are nothing short of shocking. As I mentioned, this has larger consequences.
Yesterday, the chair, by refusing to recognize questions or points of order or any of those things and by running roughshod over traditions and precedents that have made this chamber a place above partisanship, orchestrated a campaign to truly disenfranchise the minority government members of the committee. The chair used his majority and his power to override in order to change the size of the steering committee from three members to five members and explicitly refused — voted against — any guarantee that the minority governing party would be represented, thus making the steering committee answerable only to him.
Senator Fraser: Can you tell me exactly what the chair did last night? He raised it from three members to five.
Senator Wallin: He called a vote and it was raised from three members to five members. We debated at length their understanding that quorum could be called for a steering committee without any representation of the minority or other party. They said that they were fully aware of that consequence and proceeded.
The Chair: Of the five members on this new committee, what is the breakdown politically?
Senator Wallin: It will be the existing steering committee of Senator Kenny, Senator Banks and myself, and I would be allowed to appoint one more and he would be allowed to appoint one more. We are doing our research on this right now, but it might be questionable. I am not even sure that such a procedure is allowed. We might have to go back to the Senate leadership. Anyway, we are checking on that now, given that this happened last night at 7 p.m.
One of the other issues we have about this is that if a committee seeks to reverse an earlier vote establishing the steering committee, which we did several months back, whose membership has been agreed to by the respective leaderships, there must be some kind of rule or remedy. Certainly, the Senate requires a two-thirds majority for any such vote if you plan to rescind an earlier motion that an existing committee has put on the record. That is one of the things we are changing.
As well, this matter had been put to a vote last week. The chair had not enough committee members appropriately signed in at that committee, so he held the vote and counted the vote of a member who was not signed in; therefore, in our view, he lost the vote. He tried to take a vote against while sitting there signing the paper that he was going to then hand over to the clerk, which, even in my limited time, I am told is not acceptable behaviour. These are the kinds of issues that I will touch on because many of these questions arose as a result of a meeting last week. Now, many of them have been reinforced as a result of the meeting last night.
We also believe that he has defied the new rules outlined by Internal Economy last March that specifically spell out a course of action when there is disagreement between the chair and the deputy chair involving matters to do with contracts with the Senate. In respect of these contracts, I had presented my proposed amendments. It is our understanding — and again you are wiser folks on this than I — that if the chair and the deputy chair for some reason do not agree, the process is such that in response to proposed amendments the chair is to respond. If there is no agreement, it goes to steering, and if there is no agreement beyond that, it reverts to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration because these contracts are with the Senate, not with our committee. We pointed this out on two occasions, but he simply put it to a vote and the contracts were voted on and passed by the majority last night, without any response to the proposed amendments.
The Chair: Would the Internal Economy Committee still not have a say on a contract for the Senate?
Senator Wallin: The procedure as we understand it is that matters of contract go back to Internal Economy, not to the host committee. All of the outside contractors that Senator Kenny is employing are contracted with the Senate, not with him and not with our committee.
The Chair: Before you go on, Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: I want to put my name on the list.
The Chair: Please continue.
Senator Wallin: We have some general questions on procedural issues. When committee procedures are blatantly flouted, who is answerable for the subversion of that process? In what form is it challenged? After the fact, we know we can always raise points of privilege in the chamber, but the chair has refused votes on many occasions, even to hold a vote when his authority to run a meeting was challenged, such as at the committee last night. It is my understanding that standard procedure when a chair's ruling is challenged is that, at the very least, there has to be a vote on it. I am left with questions about who enforces rules for committees. What appeals process is there other than rising in the chamber? Perhaps there is none, but I am here to ask.
For example, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has been debating the role of these four consultants for months. In the process that I briefly outlined, when the contracts were sent to me, as deputy chair I have the right and the power to sign off on those, I sent back these proposed changes. None of the changes I sent back involved money or start dates or any of the technical matters. They simply focused on the integrity of the material that we received from consultants, their relationship with the Library of Parliament and their other outside contract commitments, which in theory might pose some conflict of interest. I have no reason to suggest that because we are still waiting to get the information. We have been in this lengthy debate, so not surprisingly, we were a bit stunned last Wednesday, June 10, when Senator Banks, with the chair's prior knowledge, which was clear from their commentary, simply proposed a motion to be voted on and the question was called. That is the process I was asking about.
Last night it was done again, despite the challenges that we still had on the record to the process at Monday's vote, where the vote was lost. If you plan to bring another vote, there should be some discussion. We desperately tried to propose last night, as you will see from the notes, that we have a discussion before going to the vote.
We are seeking clarification, but please tell me if I am out of line. As committee members, we are trying to determine what to do in the situation where the set of rules laid out from Internal Economy are ignored and dismissed. We do not know how to respond to that. My notes, which will be handed out to this committee once they have been translated, provide great detail about the process last week when the chair called the motion. I have spelled all of these things out for this committee.
It is worth looking at this section about the replacement senator not being properly signed in. I checked that with the clerk before I sat down, so I knew it to be the fact. We said aloud that we felt that he did not have the members present to conduct the vote, but he did it anyway. He sat there with the form. We know the process — that it is supposed to be signed off on by the whips and faxed over, not done literally on the spot so that a vote can be justified post facto.
The public transcripts from that meeting, pages 41 to 45, will show all of the history on that vote. The chair simply declared it a win, and then last night the vote was taken again.
From the advice I have received so far, once a motion is voted on it cannot be moved again and subjected to another vote simply because some senators did not like the result of the first vote.
This is the question that we have asked. Rule 63(1) states:
A motion shall not be made which is the same in substance as any question which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the order, resolution, or other decision on such question has been rescinded as hereinafter provided.
Rule 63(2) provides that:
An order, resolution, or other decision of the Senate may be rescinded on five days' notice if at least two-thirds of the Senators present vote in favour of its rescission.
That is the issue we are asking for guidance on.
We did raise two separate points of order there on the contravention of the March 12 directive from the Internal Economy and that a motion had already been resolved by a vote and could not properly be moved again.
In sum, the motion brought before the committee by Senator Banks concerned an issue, a matter in which we then believed that the committee had no authority, and that perhaps it should not have voted on this issue at all because it was the purview of Internal Economy.
The Chair: What matter was that?
Senator Wallin: The question of the conducting of the votes on the consultants, both on the substance and on the actual form. Because there is a process laid out as to what you do, there should be a vote only once that process has been concluded.
Senator Smith: As you have been going through these things it sounds as if there were a number of procedural disputes in which questions of privilege were raised.
Senator Wallin: Attempted to be raised.
Senator Smith: What happened when they were attempted to be raised?
Senator Wallin: The chair simply said that he did not recognize that as a point of order and did not recognize that as a point of privilege. Last night, he actually shut off Senator Manning's microphone as Senator Manning was asking for — and believe me this was not provocative, you will see it in the notes — a simple point of information. The chair instructed the microphone operators to shut the microphones off.
It is very hard, first, to be recognized, and it is very hard to have a ruling on these things or to even have some procedure discussed and debated; for example, to say, ``Why do we not just wait on this and find out what that ruling in Internal Economy is so that we do not go down the road and establish precedents.''
We are now sitting here today with a vote that has changed the composition of the steering committee on this committee to five people, with no obligation and no commitment to have the minority party represented in any decision-making process of the steering committee.
I find that very troubling.
Senator Furey: On that point, can I intervene? Senator Wallin, you referred to a ruling of Internal Economy. Can you be more specific? What ruling of Internal Economy?
Senator Wallin: It was a decision on, I believe, March 12 that laid out a process for resolving a dispute between a chair and a deputy chair on a question of funding, that is, contracts to consultants.
Therefore, the process, as we read it — and I unfortunately have 400 pieces of paper here — says that the process is, if the chair and the deputy chair have irreconcilable differences, it goes to the host committee's steering committee. In this case, it would be the Defence Committee's steering committee, and if there is no resolution there because it is a matter of money, then it goes back to Internal Economy for resolution because these contracts are with the Senate, not with the host committee. That is our understanding. I think it was March 12 that this decision happened.
Senator Furey: I know the one you are talking about.
Senator Robichaud: If there is a resolution of the matter at the steering committee, then it goes on.
Senator Wallin: Yes, but that process was usurped. There was no response from the chair to me, personally or indirectly, by telephone or email or anything.
Senator Robichaud: Or the steering committee?
Senator Wallin: Or the steering committee.
Senator Furey: The only way that process would not work is if one or more members of the steering committee refused to meet. Otherwise, the matter would be resolved, although not always in the way that everyone would want.
Senator Wallin: With this particular issue, there was not a meeting of the steering committee on this topic.
Senator Furey: It was not called?
Senator Wallin: No, certainly not after the fact. Senator Kenny, after, I think, a seven- or eight-week absence of no steering committees, asked that a meeting be called last week. I was travelling. I suggested a time that is outside the chamber. I suggested five o'clock because fortunately that day the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade was cancelled. He insisted on meeting during the session.
I went out, and I could not find him, so I went back in because our house leader was proposing changes to the Senate that day and I felt, out of respect, that I should be there while she made that presentation. I also simultaneously was told, while I sat in the chamber, that despite an understanding at our meeting the week before that all the travel of this committee would involve members of both parties, that Senator Kenny was canvassing Liberals only for a trip to military bases. We had agreed, as a group, to postpone that until the fall.
The Chair: Senator Wallin, can I interrupt?
Senator Wallin: Yes, please.
The Chair: A number of senators have questions on your presentation.
Senator Wallin: I can speak to Senator Furey on that.
The Chair: I have a list of senators who want to make interventions on your presentation. I am wondering if you could summarize your points.
Senator Wallin: I will try to quickly go through the other points.
I have touched briefly on the role of consultants, to whom they are answerable. I have a couple of questions on that, the relationship to the Library of Parliament. We have had circumstances where these outside consultants are not yet contracted and have not signed their confidentiality clauses. They are working pro bono. It troubles me that they are working pro bono because I am not sure what expectation might be created through that. It is difficult to monitor their work and output.
On some occasions the chair has ordered the Library of Parliament researchers to ``merge'' their work with that of these yet-to-be-contracted consultants.
Senator Fraser: Point of order. A significant amount of what Senator Wallin is saying, while she is raising serious issues — I am not disputing that; it is not news to anyone that there have been conflicts on some committees — it seems to me, really is more appropriately focused on the Internal Economy Committee.
Our time here is limited, and I wonder if we could really focus in on those elements of her presentation that really do relate to the mandate of this committee.
The Chair: Rules 63(1) and 63(2) are the two key rules she has been raising.
Senator Fraser: The letting of contracts is beyond the purview of this committee, and there appears to have been enormous difficulty about that. My sympathies to all concerned, but that is not this committee's business.
The Chair: Senator Fraser, as you know, we had representations from the Library of Parliament on this study that we are engaged in on committees, talking about the MOU that they have with the House of Commons with respect to hiring consultants. The matter of consultants is in fact before this committee in our study of committees.
Senator Fraser: I stand overruled, chair.
The Chair: I did not hear you.
Senator Fraser: I stand overruled. That is fine, let us go on. Our time is limited.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I, too, have a point of order to raise. While I sympathize with Senator Wallin, I was present at the meeting last evening.
The fact remains that some questions of natural justice must be respected. If one is to accuse another senator and hint that a person's right to speak has been violated, then the procedure followed should be more respectful of people's rights.
My point of order is as follows: Is the process that Senator Wallin is asking us to consider appropriate? Can this committee challenge the ruling of another committee without the Senate chamber having at the very least heard, in the presence of all senators, the arguments of our colleague and can it then proceed to deal with the question in accordance with accepted, proven procedure?
I can sympathize with what is being said. I would like us to get to the bottom of this matter, but I am not convinced by any means that we are following a procedure that is in keeping with our traditions. I appeal to you, Mr. Chair, to make a decision.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for that intervention, Senator Nolin. It seems to me that Senator Wallin is laying before us, the Rules Committee, aspects of the rules that she is asking us to consider in the study that we are doing, first, of the revision of the rules and, second, of committees. She is not asking this committee, the Rules Committee, to resolve internal matters of the Defence Committee at all, but she is highlighting certain rules of the Senate, such as rules 63(1), 63(2) and others, that we should consider in our ongoing consideration of the mandate of and the conduct of committees.
Senator Furey: Can I speak to that point of order? I shudder to say this, but the matters that are being discussed now are the internal workings of a committee. I say, ``I shudder to say this'' because it is probably best brought to the Internal Economy Committee. As much as I hate to see those sorts of things brought to Internal Economy, that is best place to discuss them. We are not, as the Rules Committee, interested in the internal workings of a particular committee and who said what to whom.
The Chair: I tried to make that clear today. We are not trying to resolve their problems.
Senator Furey: That is basically where we are now. We are not really discussing rule 63(1) but rather the internal workings of the committee.
Senator Fraser: Senator Wallin has raised some issues that go directly to this committee's mandate that we do want to discuss.
Senator Wallin: I am trying to get there. I am sorry for perhaps erring on the side of giving you too much detail and background.
We did want to comment specifically on the approach that Ms. L'Heureux, Assistant Parliamentary Librarian, outlined in her testimony here on May 26 because it speaks to this whole relationship of outside consultants to the Library of Parliament. She did table the MOU. We looked at that and found it interesting. If there were some such equivalent MOU here, that might go a long way to resolving some of this.
I did also write to the Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Paul Bélisle, on these matters and raised some of those issues. He did respond to me, and I can give you part of that response: ``The issues you raise about consultants and their yet-to-be-confirmed status with the committee carry potential risks, as you indicate. The Senate has clear guidelines regarding consultants hired by committees. . . . In addition, as long as they are potential consultants not employed by the committee, they are not granted access by the administration'' to other things, et cetera. I read that because he said that there are clear guidelines regarding the hiring of consultants, and we are still in search of those, so that was a question.
One question that might specifically be dealt with here — although please, if you think it is best at Internal Economy, send me there — is about the phrase ``directing staff.'' It is a phrase used in Standing Orders, and again, we found some conflicting interpretation here.
The Chair: Standing Orders?
Senator Fraser: I believe you mean the Senate Administrative Rules, SARs.
Senator Wallin: That was the phrase I was told.
Senator Fraser: We do not have Standing Orders. I think they are talking about the Senate Administrative Rules.
Senator Wallin: Whatever the phrase would be. It goes specifically to what this phrase ``directing'' means. In fact, some of the amendments we put forward were that the consultants would respond to committee members as opposed to only one individual. This is difficult for all of us, so some clarification on what ``directing'' means would be most helpful in the work you are doing.
Senator Furey: I am sorry to interrupt again, Mr. Chair, but this idea of problems with consultants for committees has a real history, and a number of rules have been developed around trying to address issues, such as payment for consultants. That really has nothing to do with this committee.
The Chair: It does have something to do with us.
Senator Furey: It has nothing to do with this committee in the sense that the Internal Economy Committee put in place rules to ensure that innocent third parties, that is, contractors, were not hurt because of disputes that went on internally within committees, and that is where we are now. Senator Wallin obviously has some serious issues that she has put before this committee this morning, but my suggestion to her would be to take those to the Internal Economy Committee. As much as I hate to say that — and I do not like to see those things come to Internal Economy — those sorts of things are far better dealt with at Internal Economy, not at the Rules committee.
Senator Wallin: Does that include this issue of the directing of staff?
Senator Furey: Absolutely.
Senator Wallin: It was in reference to Ms. L'Heureux's testimony here.
Senator Furey: However, you are talking about how a committee directs the work of its staff. That is a matter for the committee and, if there is a problem with the committee, my suggestion is that it should go to the Internal Economy Committee.
Senator Wallin: I agree. I raised it here because Ms. L'Heureux testified here, I think arguing for simplicity's sake that if there were an equivalent MOU here as they have in the House of Commons, it may spell some of that out. While I agree that the actual content might best be discussed at another committee, the question of whether or not we have a MOU to manage some of these things is something that we think is really worth looking at and supporting. To that degree, it does overlap.
Again, you may want to move these to other issues. However, in the larger sense, with respect to the role of the steering committee, given the things that I read into the record earlier on and what has happened, it is a pretty profound change that the steering committee has had its size unilaterally changed and has taken out any role or right for the minority or governing party.
There are other questions, but, again, we are in the middle of researching this. I am sorry, but so much of this happened last night, and we are looking into contraventions of distribution rules, et cetera.
Again, I will just throw this out, and please stop me if you do not think it is appropriate. What are the rules surrounding the calling of steering committee meetings, regardless of its size and who has rights on it? It seems to me we need more rules around what constitutes an official calling of a steering committee meeting and whether notice should be served. This comes back to the other issue of the role and directing of consultants as well. I will get to the point slightly later about what we do when there are differences of opinion, and I am sure there are some rules on that.
I would like to say, for the record, that we would like to see decorum rules enforced a little more clearly. Again, I do not know how we go about that, but we have been given a copy of this. The language used both before the gavel and after the gavel but in the presence of staff and witnesses and certainly the senators themselves is quite appalling. There are references on that.
Senator Kenny raised many other issues with you, and I will just put them out there. What are the rules surrounding a committee chair using material for publication, whether in the printed word or on television and speaking on behalf of the committee when in fact testimony may not have been taken on that issue and reports certainly have not been written?
Is the question of meeting during adjournments an issue you are focused on? If you are, our position is that we do not believe committees should be meeting during adjournments or summer recesses in this particular case. The chair lives in Ottawa and only serves on one committee. It is easy for him, but many of the rest of the committee members travel from afar. We have representational duties and serve on other committees. He had made several suggestions to this committee about smaller committees meeting more often, meeting times of the committee, committees that deal with policy should meet in times of high need.
The Chair: Those are the very things this committee is looking at in our study of the mandate and so on of committees. We are seized with that and looking at it.
Senator Wallin: We have serious concerns about those issues. I have briefly raised some of them today.
We do not have any experience yet with a line-by-line consideration of reports in the committee. I am told that discussion about reports going forward often includes a line-by-line discussion of draft reports. This material is usually drafted by one of the outside consultants, not by the Library of Parliament. When there is disagreement, there is simply a vote and the people who are in disagreement lose that vote. Therefore, there is something called dissenting observations. I would again ask the committee to look at the use of that and perhaps expand the use of it. I gather there is no such thing as a minority report in the Senate.
Given our circumstances in the committee, I can see clearly that we will have differences of views on this. In the short term and, obviously, in the long term, we will need to have some rules laid out about what we do. This is true particularly given the new situation where the steering committee no longer needs to have the minority or governing party to even be represented at a meeting that often directs this kind of research and reporting.
I have touched on the fact that meeting during adjournments would be dangerous, counter productive and exclude many members of the Senate who must travel. The chair raised issues of fast-tracking or streamlining some procedures after start-up committees. I simply say, for the record, that it took the committee months to establish the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, which we had suggested from the beginning that it was a high priority for us. There had been agreement on the membership and chairmanship of that committee by the leadership. It did not seem to make any difference. I would be in favour of fast-tracking or streamlining procedures if they did in fact reflect the views of agreements of party leaderships in advance on that question.
There are issues that fall into the category of protection of Library of Parliament staff, including the clerk. I have notes on that, but I know we are quickly running out of time.
I simply want to end by saying that one of the joys as an outsider — and now someone inside — is that this place has long functioned without the complex and elaborate set of rules that we see in the other place. There was always an assumption of collegial and gentlemanly behaviour, civility in committees and all of that. I do not want to try to solve every problem by imposing or asking for a new rule.
Unfortunately, I think we need to have rules that are more detailed than perhaps they were in the past to deal with the exceptions that I have laid out for you today. My suggestion would be that we try to return — I say this having only brief experience, but having watched the Senate over the years — to a time when we were more respectful of one another in terms of our points of view and the language we use toward one another. There is an obvious problem in the Senate when one party has a majority today and may not have that majority tomorrow. Be careful that the rules and precedents set at this time will not come back at a later date to be a problem for the next group that is here. I suggest we try to have principles of behaviour rather than rules and regulations to deal with problems.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Furey: I have a point of clarification on the witness' last comment. Senator Wallin, you mentioned protection of Library of Parliament staff. Do you mean protecting their jobs?
Senator Wallin: No, I mean protecting their rights, responsibilities and relationships to other committee members and, in fairness, their workloads. It is tied into these other issues about who assigns work and what we are asking them to do. I feel very uncomfortable asking Library of Parliament staff to take the material of outside contractors — even once those contracts are settled — merge it with their own material, do fact checks and then hand it back to us.
For example, the government members on this committee have asked that those two sets of research are always presented separately so that we can see the material presented by the contractors. It certainly means there is a great deal of wasted effort and energy.
The Chair: Thank you for that answer. I have a number of senators who have been waiting for a long time to ask questions.
I want to thank Senator Wallin for making this presentation and raising the issues as they relate to the two studies that the Rules Committee is doing — first, a revision of the entire rules; and, second, looking at committees' mandate and functions. You have received an invitation on two occasions from the chair of Internal Economy for a number of matters that do not specifically relate to Rules but that relate to the functioning of your committee that could and should properly be taken to that committee. I hope we will not be discussing those matters any further here today.
Senator Fraser: I will try to address myself to more general issues and not repeat my earlier comments about Internal Economy. I will make a couple of comments and then put a question.
On the matter of quorum, it is well established that quorum for committees need not include representatives of both sides. The reason for that is very simple; one side could paralyze the work of the committee ad infinitum by not showing up. If it is true for committees, I have always assumed that it was true for the steering committee as well. This does not detract from the duty of the chair and deputy chair to work together in a constructive fashion. However, it has always been my understanding that quorum for steering committees is simply bodies, not majority and minority affiliations. This is one thing that should be clarified if I am wrong.
On the matter of reopening organizational votes — again, this has been my understanding — organizational votes can be and, indeed, sometimes must be reopened depending on circumstances. For example, suppose the deputy chair of the committee has resigned from the committee or from the Senate. I am not aware of any rules anywhere saying that you can reopen these votes, but not those. Therefore, if you can reopen votes, you can reopen all votes.
The expansion of the steering committee from three to five members may be a little unusual, but a five-member steering committee is not unusual in its own right in the Senate. There are people who think it is a good idea and others who do not.
However, you are a new deputy chair pitch forked, I may say, into a very difficult job after not much time in the chamber.
Senator Wallin: Asked for willingly.
Senator Fraser: Congratulations for having the courage to take it on.
Were you given any kind of handbook, précis or training by Senate administration to guide you in these matters?
Senator Wallin: No. There was no formal training. Certainly, I found all the old reports and read through them. Senator Kenny was quite cooperative.
Senator Fraser: I am talking about the rules of committees.
Senator Wallin: I did that on my own by going through existing things.
On your earlier point, it was not that just any vote cannot be reopened.
Senator Fraser: Are you referring to the organizational meeting?
Senator Wallin: No. I was talking about the vote that was taken and lost.
Senator Fraser: I was talking about the expansion of the quorum of the steering committee and changing one's mind about that in mid-stream.
However, a separate reopening of a vote is a matter that this committee can properly address. A great deal of what Senator Wallin has said, chair, speaks to the my experience — and I have been chair or deputy chair of a number of committees — of a wee thin handbook being provided to new chairs and deputy chairs. The book was helpful but, certainly, not as complete as I could have wished it to be. It would be proper for this committee to include in its recommendations that the administration, the table officers and the administrative officers put together a detailed handbook for committee chairs and deputy chairs.
The Chair: Good suggestion.
Senator Fraser: As well, as we redo our rules in our first study, which is separate from the study of committees, we should examine the ways in which the various rules apply to committees and whether they should apply. This should be made explicit.
I am sorry, that was not a question to you Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: That was what I was trying to say in a long, roundabout way. Every single problem we have, we have to go to the table officers or Mr. Bélisle. A detailed handbook would be useful.
The Chair: We will take that up.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I raised my point earlier. I am still convinced that the rules of natural justice must at the very least be respected. My question is more along the lines of a comment.
Even if, as Senator Wallin suggested, detailed rules are drafted, the fact remains that there must be an element of good faith present and clearly, that is not the case with the relationship described to us for the past 45 minutes. Regardless of what we do or of how we amend the rules, the problem will not be resolved.
There is a problem of good faith between two groups of individuals and with all due respect to the committee, I do not think it has anything to do with the rules. It is more a question of leadership and clearly, some people will have to assume their responsibilities and ensure that respect extends not only to individuals, but also to an institution worthy of that respect. Within the institution, there are people waiting for the chance to point the finger at us and destroy us. Therefore, there is no time to waste on problems of bad faith. Unfortunately, we are not going to resolve that problem in this forum.
[English]
Senator Smith: I will be frank, Senator Wallin. I sat on the Defence Committee seven years ago. At that time, there was pretty good collegiality. There were several Conservative senators that Senator Kenny seemed to have as soul mates. Most issues were decided on the basis of consensus, although not everything was unanimous. It sounds as though there is no consensus on anything now at that committee. I have not heard of a walkout yet, but it sounds as though it is almost at that point.
I know that Senator Kenny works incredibly hard, but it almost sounds as though you feel it has become a dictatorship. Is that too strong a word? How can the situation be described in everyday language? What are you hoping that this committee might do, if anything, to lower the temperature and bring the committee back to way that it functioned in the past? Is that a fair question?
Senator Wallin: Yes, it is fair. At the beginning of my remarks, when you were coming in, I said that common civility on this committee has broken down. It is through both the behaviour and language that I find it is unlike anything I have ever seen. I am no prude — I cut my teeth and grew up in news rooms across this country. Fortunately, I sit on other committees, which function. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee and have replaced colleagues at other committees. In my limited experience, I have seen a much more collegial relationship between other committee members who at least attempt to reach consensus when there is disagreement.
Frankly, I am horrified by what I see. I believe in our democracy and that this place is a very important part of our parliamentary process. For all the questions about reforming the Senate, we need a Senate in this country because there is a place for sober second thought. I have stated this at my committee on many occasions. Canada is a country at war. I have been to Afghanistan. I have had the opportunity to work on the Manley report. We are dealing with the fundamental issues of life and death; and we experienced another death this week. We are dealing with our role in Afghanistan and what we will do for our veterans, both young and old. These matters are pressing.
This committee should be focused on the substance, but we have been sidelined completely by counter-productive behaviour. I am running around trying to become as expert as our table officers are in matters of procedure so that we might get to the content. I do not want to be doing that. I wish that were not the case. I am concerned about the dictatorship idea because this is precisely what troubles me about the steering committee increasing to five members. I am sure that when the tables were turned in other times in our history it would have seemed like a reasonable thing to ensure that there was at least one representative of the minority party. With five members, I see no will and no intent to acknowledge that principle. It leaves me extremely troubled, and that is why I said earlier that I hoped this committee was an exception to the rule. I feel we must act on this sooner rather than later so that this committee does not become totally dysfunctional and so that it does not spill over to other committees. That is truly troubling because God knows the other committees work, and I am grateful that they do and that my time there can be focused on substance.
Senator Smith: With respect to the consultants, do you have the sense that they do not work as much for the committee? Spell out your concern.
Senator Wallin: Yes, that is absolutely true. Many of these folks have worked for the committee for a long time. Their relationship with Senator Kenny is personal, which, of course, happens over time. They have been working with him through this situation without contracts. A case in point that truly troubled me was when we were informally interviewing one of the supposed contractors. I looked at this person and said, ``In a situation where Senator Kenny and I disagreed on a matter of substance or interpretation of testimony before us, and Senator Kenny chose to ask you to go and set up media interviews or whatever it was, would you feel comfortable doing the same for me, knowing that my views would be contrary to those of the chair?''
This person looked to Senator Kenny for the answer before responding. I knew instantly we had a problem at that point.
Senator Smith: What was the answer?
Senator Wallin: The answer was, ``Well, sure, I am sure I could do that.'' This was after the informal consultation.
Yes, it is the feeling of other committee members that in this notion of directing staff — which was why it was one of the issues I raised about what that actually means — that they are his employees. That is why we are trying to keep the work that they do and the work that the Library of Parliament people do separate.
Senator Fraser: May I recall, in my view, a very valid point made by Senator Nolin that we are going down a dangerous path if we allow meetings of this committee to turn into personalized complaints about individuals who are not present.
The Chair: I agree.
Senator Fraser: We have to contain ourselves to principles that apply to us all. I appreciate that Senator Wallin believes she is arguing from a position of principle, but the tone of the discussion around this table this morning has tended to be a little too often, in my view, one of personal attack on someone who is not present.
The Chair: I understand your point. The witness was, in fact, responding to a very direct question from Senator Smith.
Senator Fraser: I appreciate that.
The Chair: Senator Keon has a supplementary on that question.
Senator Keon: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think I can save time if I have a supplementary now and not bring this issue forth again.
Senator Fraser made a very good suggestion about guidelines for chairs and deputy chairs. Senator Smith has raised a tremendously important question. Senator Wallin had raised this herself in her testimony, but that is the use of consultant reports.
Over the years, on the committees I have served on, we have never quite known what to do with these reports from consultants. Sometimes consultants are witnesses first; you find there is a tremendous repository of expertise in these witnesses, and then you want to engage them to which the they respond that they can do this for you but cannot afford all that time unless, well you know — so they give you a report.
My own handling of consultants' reports has been to add them as an appendix but not put them into the body of the report. When you are addressing Senator Fraser's suggestion, this should be addressed in there, particularly for the chairs, that they know exactly how to develop this relationship between consultants and witnesses and the committee and so forth because I think it is the responsibility of the chair and the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Smith: I do not really need to pursue it any further, but in response to Senator Fraser's point, it is a valid one. Mr. Chair, you will ensure that Senator Kenny does see the transcript and have an opportunity to respond in person or in writing or however he sees fit. That goes without saying, but I think it is important to have it on the record.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Smith.
Senator Furey: Just to review, Senator Wallin, this whole idea of changing the rule to have the steering committee ensure that contractors are paid was put in place primarily to protect what I call innocent third parties; contractors who did work for committees and ended up, for whatever reason, getting embroiled in a dispute between chairs or deputy chairs or members of the committee.
The problem now seems to be that the steering committee, which is a subcommittee under rule 96(5), requires all three members for a quorum.
I am assuming that this unilateral increase in the number of members on the steering committee is a way of getting around this rule. Are you suggesting that we change the rule? Are you recommending that the quorum for the rule be changed? Are you recommending that we put something in place to prevent the increase in the number of members on a steering committee?
Senator Wallin: There is so much back story in all of those things, which we do not want to go into at this point. I understand the numbers change and that you can have a steering committee of any size you want provided it is not more than half. I think that is the only rule, that it cannot be more than half the committee membership in total. Without the goodwill that Senator Smith talks about, the intent to ensure that there is some consensus and that other parties are represented and that there is some way for the minority to voice its opinion and to have a role, if that is not done through consensus, goodwill, understanding, history and precedent, then I am afraid, having witnessed what I am seeing now, we do need to have some kind of rule. That was my general caveat: I do not want to make the rule around the problem, that there is a specific problem there.
However, I think this would work if the numbers were reversed, if the situation were reversed, but if there is not that goodwill and intent, then there needs to be some kind of rule.
Senator Furey: I understand what you are saying, but, as I have said earlier, all of those issues around the rule are issues that should be brought to Internal Economy.
With respect to the rule, which is the mandate of this committee, are you aware of whether there are any other problems with other committees with this rule? If we were to contemplate changing this, will we be changing it just for one committee?
Senator Wallin: That is my concern about the exception to the rule. My limited experience is that I am on a very functional committee — another committee — and I have sat in on several others doing replacement duty. In one case a Conservative is the chair and in another case a Liberal is the chair, so it is kind of evened out.
I do find a much greater attempt on the part of those individuals to seek out the opinions and the agreement of others and that there are informal and formal discussions all the time about making things work, for example: We have a last-minute change of witness; he cannot come; how about this? That stuff is just done, as it should be, in a much more cooperative way.
Yes, you do not want to respond always to the squeaky wheel and then put a rule in place that hampers everyone else, but if there is no attempt or no willingness, I do not know how else you get around it.
Senator Furey: I am glad you pointed it out because the rule probably does need some tweaking. Right now, if three is a quorum for a steering committee, any one person can bring it to a halt. It is probably something that we should look at seriously. Thank you very much.
Senator Duffy: Thank you, Senator Wallin, for coming here today. I appreciate Senator Furey's offer to have this issue taken up by the Internal Economy Committee.
Senator Wallin: As do I.
Senator Duffy: In the handbook we are talking about for committee chairs — and I do not know if there is a rule somewhere in the Senate that already exists that talks about an abusive workplace — I am concerned about some of what I have heard about the clerks being caught in the middle, about researchers and employees of the Library of Parliament being caught in the middle of these fights. I am concerned about what I hear that goes on that creates a hostile work environment in which no public servant should be expected to be the meat in the sandwich.
Somewhere there should be a rule that we will maintain a civilized workplace — that is the Rules Committee. I would appreciate it very much if Internal Economy could pick it up because, from what I hear, it does not show up in Hansard, but certain issues of abuse of staff and other senators occurs immediately before or after the gavel, very cleverly avoiding being in Hansard. I leave you with that.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Duffy, for that intervention. This is the Rules Committee and not the Internal Economy Committee, but I know that Internal Economy has recently brought in an anti-harassment policy. Again, that is not for this committee.
Senator Robichaud: The meetings you referred to and the decisions and votes that were taken that were not according to the rules, were they done in the public part of the meeting, or was that in camera?
Senator Wallin: The one I referred to last week about the illegal vote was public. We have both the transcript and the recording of that. Others of these things were done in camera, but last night's events were all public.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, if there are no further questions, I would like once again to thank Senator Wallin for raising a number of questions that relate to the two studies that this committee on rules is conducting now. It has helped us in our study and has raised a number of questions. There are other questions that are more properly subject matters for the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and Senator Wallin has been invited now three times by the chair of that committee to take those problems there.
Senator Furey: I was only kidding, chair.
Senator Wallin: It is too late. I said, ``Yes.''
The Chair: Thank you for coming. We appreciate your help.
Senator Fraser: Just before we leave the topic of this study, and nothing to do with Senator Wallin, I believe I heard you say, chair, at the beginning in your presentation of this portion of today's meeting that another committee chair from whom we shall be hearing in the future is Senator Andreychuk.
The Chair: She is away this week.
Senator Fraser: That is not my question. I had, on an earlier occasion, understood that committee chairs who are already members of this committee would not be invited to participate as witnesses in this study. I am not objecting to it. I am just thinking that, if that is not the case, perhaps the chair and deputy chair of Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs should be bending their minds to an appearance before this committee.
The Chair: That would be welcomed.
Senator Nolin: I would prefer not to testify.
The Chair: You raised it before, and I am glad you raised it again. I will put it on the agenda for the next steering committee. Senator Smith, Senator Robichaud and I can look at it again.
Senator McCoy: May I suggest, chair, that we invite Senator Atkins to speak to this committee? It would help considerably if we had the benefit of hearing from someone who has been on, shall I say, all sides of the chamber, has over two decades of experience, has the respect of the chamber and is not inclined to create problems but rather to resolve them. His insights could be helpful in the longer term and perhaps give us more wisdom than some others have managed to bring forward. I do not know about our sitting schedule. Certainly he could be requested to come either now or after summer recess. Just because he is retiring does not mean that he could not come and speak to us. He is retiring June 27. It would behoove us to speak to the elders, as we might say.
The Chair: Further to that suggestion, Senator Murray fits the category you just described, and Senator Murray will be giving evidence before this committee. He has a great deal of wisdom. He is highly respected by a number of people and has had a volume of experience.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
Senator Nolin: You will recall, Mr. Chair, that at the first meeting of this committee in February, I had recommended that you meet with your colleagues on the Internal Economy Committee to look at the possibility of putting together a working group of both committees to look after a series of processes and operations of the Senate that we could adopt to ameliorate efficiency. Various ideas were put on the table at that time. I would like to know, while the two chairs are here, the status of that future project.
Senator Furey: If you have been reading some of the French media, as I am sure you are, you will know that we have scrapped the idea, and Senator Oliver and I are forming an independent Atlantic Senate caucus.
Seriously, Senator Oliver and I spoke about this on Friday, and it is our intention to meet this week and to propose the members for this committee so that we can have it up and running for the summer. We can have the Library of Parliament and the steering committee meet at least once or twice over the summer to prepare an agenda for the full committee in the fall.
Senator Nolin: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)