Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence, March 16, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:34 a.m., pursuant to rule 88, for the purpose of organization.
[Traduction]
Charles Robert, Clerk of the Committee: Welcome to the organization meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedure and the Rights of Parliament. Honourable senators, there is a quorum. As clerk of the committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair.
[Français]
I am ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
[Traduction]
Senator Carignan: I nominate Senator Smith.
Mr. Robert: Are there any other nominations?
[Français]
Senator Stratton: I move that nominations close.
Mr. Robert: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion to elect Senator Smith as chair?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Robert: I invite the Honourable Senator Smith to take the chair.
Senator David P. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the next item on the agenda is the election of a deputy chair. Is there a motion to that effect?
Senator Carstairs: I move that Senator Stratton be the deputy chair.
The Chair: Are there any further nominations?
Senator Fraser: I move that nominations be closed.
The Chair: Nominations are closed.
Senator Stratton, you have been duly acclaimed as the deputy chair. Would you like to take your place with us at the head table?
Senator Stratton: Do I have to?
The Chair: No, it is not compulsory.
Senator Stratton: I am ensconced right here.
The Chair: Life is all about options, and it is an option that is available to you.
Item No. 3 deals with the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
Senator Carstairs: I so move.
The Chair: Does anyone wish to speak to this item? Is the motion carried?
Senator Stratton: Do we need to name the third member of the steering committee at this time?
The Chair: Is there a provision to do it later?
Mr. Robert: There can be provisions to do that later.
The Chair: Why do we not establish the committee first. Is the provision for selecting the third member in the agenda?
Senator Stratton: I do not think so.
Mr. Robert: It is a multiple-step process.
The Chair: First, is the motion agreed to?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is carried.
We now need to nominate and elect a third senator.
Senator Stratton: I wish to nominate Senator Carignan.
Senator Fraser: I always recommend against making a formal motion for the third member of the steering committee.
Senator Stratton: I agree.
Senator Fraser: If that third person is sick, you are stuck. However, you can tell us who it will be.
Senator Stratton: Senator Carignan.
That is a good point.
The Chair: There is a three-step process with which I have been provided by the clerk, who is also a great expert in these matters. I will read it to you.
Do we have extra copies of this?
Mr. Robert: Yes.
The Chair: Let us distribute them. Everyone can look at it and see if they are comfortable with it.
The motion is to set up a subcommittee of three, with the third member being Senator X, who can be authorized to designate a substitute from time to time, another member on the subcommittee, in order that we are not placed in a straitjacket.
The next step is that the clerk be informed of any such substitution in writing.
Finally, the motion stipulates that the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, witnesses and the schedule of hearings.
Are there any questions on the format of this motion?
Senator Fraser: Yes. Is the quantity ``X'' constant? If the third senator is Senator Carignan, are we authorizing Senator Carignan to designate a substitute? That would be, as Senator Cools would say if she were here, novel.
Mr. Robert: I believe this proposal was devised as a remedy to the problem that you yourself indicated, senator. It is to maintain some consistency in terms of the balance of the steering committee. If there is to going be an unknown third member, that member could be identified at some future date, but how will changes be managed?
Senator Fraser: I understand that. I am asking about who will authorize the changes. I would have thought it would be the deputy chair, he being the leader of the majority group, rather than Senator X.
Senator Ogilvie: The original ruling, which is in the documents we have, states that the other member of the committee is to be designated after the usual consultation. It is my understanding that it is well understood within the two major parties as to what that consultation means and that there is a process for designating the third member, which arises after agreement among those parties. Therefore, there is not an issue in terms of how the individual would be selected. The senator would be selected by the procedures agreed to between the two parties. It is my understanding that they spent a lot of time working out the arrangements to identify the third member and that they well know how to designate another member should the already-designated member not be able to serve.
The Chair: On that point, when I arrived this morning, my assistant advised me that Senator Stratton had advised my office yesterday that that was the recommended third person. If I had a problem, I was to call. I have no problem, so we can assume that the usual consultations have occurred.
Senator Carstairs: I believe we need to keep this as fluid as we possibly can. If we start designating like this and Senator Carignan, God love him, has a car accident, he cannot designate anyone. We do not want to get into who designates whom. It is clear that a government member will be on the subcommittee. We have all agreed on that. Leave it loose.
Senator Stratton: That is fine. We are making a mountain out of a molehill.
The Chair: Mr. Clerk, when it says in the motion under Item No. 3 on the formal agenda, ``and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation,'' what is the exact wording of the motion for that designation to exist?
Senator Stratton: No, we do not want that. As Senator Carstairs has pointed out, we do not want to have an official motion. We will just have an agreement that the designated third member of the steering committee is so and so. Thereafter, if that third member is injured, sick or dies, we can name a substitution. It is as simple as that.
The Chair: It is not carved in stone as the eleventh commandment.
Is there an understanding that that is the general interpretation with which we are all comfortable? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Do we need to adopt this draft motion?
Mr. Robert: No, we do not.
Senator Fraser: Mr. Chair, for further certainty, did we adopt the second paragraph of Motion No. 3, which empowers the subcommittee to make certain decisions on behalf of the committee?
Senator Stratton: Yes.
The Chair: I believe we did, but in the sense that we have our hand on the trigger but have not pulled it.
Who was the mover of the third item?
Senator Carstairs: I was.
The Chair: Does anyone else have an issue that they wish to discuss relating to Item No. 3?
Senator Stratton: We can move along.
The Chair: We can move on to Item No. 4, which deals with a motion to publish the committee's proceedings.
Senator Oliver: I so move.
The Chair: Does anyone wish to discuss this motion? Is it agreed? Is there a consensus?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Item No. 5 relates to an authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when a quorum is not present.
Senator Fraser: I so move.
Senator Ogilvie: Is there a quorum of four members for this committee?
The Chair: Our expert will confirm.
Mr. Robert: Four is the quorum.
Senator Ogilvie: My observation is that given a committee of this nature and size, holding a meeting with three or fewer senators to deal with issues should occur only under extraordinary circumstances. I am sure this is a long- standing Senate procedure, and I will not raise anything more than just my observation. However, it seems remarkable to me that a committee would hold such a meeting with three or fewer members present.
The Chair: Obviously, if someone felt strongly about it, the committee could deal with it if there was a consensus to do so. However, for now, we will take that as an observation. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Can we assume that the motion of Senator Fraser is carried?
Senator Stratton: Yes.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item No. 6 is the financial report. The wording of the motion is before you.
Senator Stratton: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Stratton has moved that the committee adopt the draft first report prepared in accordance with rule 104.
Does anyone wish to speak?
Senator Stratton: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
We are on Item No. 7.
Senator Brown: I so move.
The Chair: Does anyone wish to raise an item relating to this motion dealing with the Library of Parliament, et cetera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
We will move on to Item No. 8, which deals with the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. This motion arises pursuant to the Senate Administrative Rules. Do I have a mover?
Senator Wallace: I so move.
The Chair: Does anyone wish to speak to this motion? Do we have a consensus? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Next is Item No. 9, the usual motion relating to travel.
Senator Carignan: I so move.
The Chair: Does anyone wish to speak to this motion?
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item No. 10 has to do with the designation of members travelling on committee business. Again, this is the usual motion, which is spelled out here. I am sure you have seen it before.
Senator Joyal: I so move.
The Chair: Does anyone wish to speak to this item?
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
We are moving to Item No. 11, the usual motion with regard to travelling and living expenses of witnesses. I am sure you are familiar with this one.
Senator Carstairs: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item No. 12 deals with communications.
Senator Ogilvie: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
We will now address the time slots for our regular meetings. Could I have the clerk clarify that for us? I am assuming we will meet regularly on Tuesdays at 9:30, but our second committee meeting of the week, if it occurs, will be on Wednesdays, which can complicate things from time to time. Last week, quite a few of us were at the Politics and the Pen dinner, which had been set months ago. Are there any comments regarding the time slots?
Senator Carstairs: Why is the committee not meeting at noon on Wednesdays?
Senator Fraser: Why have they changed it?
The Chair: These time shots are generally agreed upon by the whips.
Senator Stratton: I am no longer a whip.
I think there was a conflict around this table with senators serving on other committees. That is the only reason I can see.
The Chair: It was not my choice, if that makes you feel any better. I was not in the loop then.
Senator Keon: The Wednesday night time slot conflicts with the regular meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
The Chair: Are you a member of that committee?
Senator Keon: Yes.
The Chair: Maybe we should make a list of members who have conflicts. Is there anyone on this side?
Senator Joyal, do you have a conflict?
Senator Joyal: I do not have a conflict at all. On the contrary, I would prefer Wednesday at lunch. I sit on the Legal Committee, as do Senators Wallace, Carignan, Carstairs and Fraser. Our colleague Senator Oliver might have an interest in key legal and constitutional affairs issues as well. That committee sometimes has a long list of witnesses and sits beyond the time slot. I would much prefer to meet on Wednesdays at lunch. I do not know of any other committees sitting on Wednesdays at lunch.
The Chair: I was not consulted on this matter. It had been agreed to, obviously, before I was elected chair of this committee. If there is any advantage, this probably guarantees that we would only meet once a week, which would be on Tuesdays.
Perhaps someone could make a motion confirming the Tuesday time slot and then direct the steering committee to raise it with their respective whips to at least explore alternatives.
Senator Stratton: I have not served on this committee for a while, but when I did, I think Jack Austin was the chair. Senator Carstairs will remember that well. We only met once a week, on Wednesdays. My fear is if we meet at 6:45 on a Wednesday night, given the number of senators who sit on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we will have a real problem. I would recommend that we not meet Wednesday night unless we absolutely have to do so. If we do, we should serve dinner because then you will get people. Otherwise, they will take off on you.
The Chair: Do we have a consensus that as a general rule we can get by with one meeting a week or do we not?
Senator Fraser: I have two points to make.
First, as a general practice, I would hate to see us adopt a motion stating that we only meet once a week. There are many occasions when there is sufficient work for us to meet twice a week. In the last session, it was useful for that Wednesday noon slot to be available, not for the work of the full committee but, as you will recall, for the work of the task force or working group. We did not call it a subcommittee, but it was a smaller group. They worked on clarifying the language of the rules. It was handy to have that time slot.
On the matter of the time slot, I would strongly second what Senator Joyal has said. The Legal Committee habitually carries a very heavy load. We have to study numerous bills, many of which have complicated implications and require us to hear a significant number of witnesses. Traditionally, we have been able to do that because we could overflow our regular slot on Wednesday evening.
However, given the massive overlap of membership between this committee and the membership of the Legal Committee, that now becomes basically impossible if we are to meet twice a week, which I think we should.
I would like us to meet twice a week, and I would really like it if the chair and deputy chair could make strong representations to have the Wednesday meeting slot moved back to noon.
Senator Oliver: I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Fraser. On Wednesday, when the Senate rises at four o'clock in the afternoon, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce meets for two hours, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Sometimes that runs over as well.
Nonetheless, I support Senator Fraser in saying that in the past there has been more than enough work to keep this committee busy twice a week. I think it would be wrong, as a practice, to say that this committee would only meet one day a week.
Senator Ogilvie: I think there may have been a little uncertainty with regard to Senator Keon's intervention concerning the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. What he said would support Senator Fraser's point because the Social Affairs Committee also meets Wednesday afternoon and often has a long agenda. That increases the actual number of members around this table who have a potential conflict in the evening. His comment was not meant to imply that there would be a conflict between the Social Affairs Committee and a noon meeting.
Senator Carstairs: Could I make a motion, then, that this committee meet on Tuesday from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and that the second meeting be determined by discussions between the steering committee and the whips of both parties?
The Chair: Yes, I am comfortable with that. We cannot adopt it without clearing it with the whips.
Senator Cools: Senator Carstairs, if you could include in your motion — or we can make an amendment — that the committee has shown a strong preference for meeting at noon on Wednesdays, that would be some guidance. It is quite often a mystery how these decisions are made.
The Chair: It is usually 12 noon or when the national caucuses end because sometimes they go over 10 minutes or so.
Senator Cools: People are usually quite accommodating around the question of caucus.
The Chair: Are you comfortable with that amendment, Senator Carstairs?
Senator Carstairs: Absolutely.
The Chair: Does anyone want to speak to this?
We have a motion before us. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next item on our agenda is Other Business. Does anyone have items in this category that they wish to raise?
Senator Joyal: Mr. Chair, you will remember that many of us around the table were here in the previous incarnation of this committee when we initiated a review of the rules. Is that review still on our agenda? Should it be the priority of this committee?
The Chair: I suggest that the steering committee meet as soon as this meeting is adjourned in order to hold a preliminary discussion on which matters should be before us. There are a number of issues. We studied the television issue to death. There was consensus on certain matters but not on others, and we have to come back and complete that report.
I would invite senators to chip in and give advice to the members of the steering committee as to our priorities.
Senator Stratton, are you free for a few minutes as soon as we adjourn?
Senator Stratton: No.
The Chair: Not today?
Senator Stratton: I can get back to you. I have a meeting right after. We may be able to set something up. When the Senate sits, perhaps the three of us could get together around 3 p.m. in one of the back rooms.
Senator Fraser: Senator Carignan has a previously scheduled steering committee meeting of the Legal Committee right after Question Period.
Senator Stratton: I guess we cannot do it then. We will arrange something between the three of us.
The Chair: Yes, I am sure we can. We will not hold it on Wednesday at 6:45 p.m.
Is there anything further on this item? Do any committee members want to chip in briefly and advise the steering committee as to what our priorities might be?
Senator Joyal: I think it would be fair for all members — former and new — to be aware of which subjects were covered in the previous incarnation of this committee so that we have an idea of the pending issues and can prioritize them. As you know, this committee does not need a motion from the Senate in order to initiate studies. We are the only ones who decide that.
The Chair: I agree. We could draft a memorandum in bullet point form, clear it with the steering committee and circulate it to members of the full committee.
Senator Fraser: As part of that memorandum, could we have a list of reports that this committee has presented to the Senate and that have not been adopted? I gather there may be a couple of them. Then we could have a look at what may or may not be considered as pending work.
I am sorry. I did not quite catch Senator Joyal's earlier intervention. If he was talking about the group that was working on clarification of the language of the rules, I would very much like to see that work be continued. It was well advanced and worth continuing.
The Chair: Yes, our clerk was very involved.
Senator Cools: Our request of the steering committee should be confined only to look back over the past year, to itemize the business and bring it back to us for debate. The discussion about our movements and activities from here on in should be quite fulsome and have the participation of the full committee, not just the steering committee.
I like your idea of preparing a memo and doing a summary of the committee's work done in the past year, but the entire committee should have a full discussion on where it wishes to go. We used to call that ``Future Business,'' so maybe we should stay with that practice.
The Chair: I agree. I did not have in mind talking about future projects but rather an overview of works in progress or even works stalled in progress that were on the record.
Senator Cools: We should act as though we are beginning a new session because we have begun one. It is not an ornament; it is a fact.
A senator just whispered ``recalibrate.'' One of these days I will have a debate on that word. There is no such word in parliamentary usage as ``recalibrate,'' but that is a story for another day.
Senator Oliver: I agree with the second part of Senator Fraser's suggestion that the subcommittee working on the clarification of the rules should be continued if at all possible because dozens and dozens of hours of meaningful work had gone in to making the rules better and clearer for honourable senators. I would hope that is something that could continue.
Second, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator LeBreton, and the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Cowan, in the last session asked that this committee have a look at the composition of committees. Extensive work had been done on that matter and a questionnaire went out to all honourable senators. That research has been tabulated. I would think that the leadership on both sides of the house would want that work to continue. That is something as well that should come forward.
The Chair: That item is on the record. We will be dealing with that at our meeting.
Are there any further comments? I think we have the picture and can now adjourn, if everyone is in agreement.
Senator Fraser: I so move.
(The committee adjourned.)