Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence - November 26, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 26, 2013
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 10:36 a.m., to hold an organization meeting, pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate.
[Translation]
Charles Robert, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as the clerk of the committee, I have a duty to preside over the election of the chair.
[English]
I'm ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
Senator Furey: I nominate Senator White.
Senator Unger: I second that.
Mr. Robert: Are there any other nominations?
Senator D. Smith: I move that nominations be closed.
Mr. Robert: I think the motion is adopted. Senator White.
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I will now move to the second agenda item, election of the deputy chair. I will ask for nominations for deputy chair.
Senator Comeau: I move Senator Smith.
The Chair: Any other nominations? Nominations are closed. The election of Senator Smith as deputy chair is moved and closed.
Congratulations, Senator Smith.
The next agenda item is the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. I am looking for someone to move that item.
Senator Enverga: I move:
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 to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cools: Do we call for debate?
Senator Enverga: Debate?
Senator Cools: On the motion. You've just moved a motion. Usually these motions are debated.
Senator Comeau: Unless the question is called. I'm calling the question.
Senator Cools: I would like to debate the motion. I would just like to say that these lists of automatic motions grow like Topsy every session, every year. I've always questioned them, and I think we should.
What I'm questioning in this motion is the nature of the decisions made on behalf of the committee. It says here, ``with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.'' I have no problem with any of those initiatives, but what I do have a problem with is that quite often many committees sink into bad practice and the steering committee doesn't report its actions to the committee. I've even known in recent years that some committees dispute that the steering committee is subject to the opinion of the larger committee.
I'm not proposing a motion. I just thought that we should express some concern because it's a pretty undesirable situation when one is midstream in studying an issue and discovers that somebody else, mostly the steering committee, has made a decision about the number of witnesses, the quantum, the who, and no other members of the committee can get input.
I think we should have an indication from you, Senator White, because you are new and novel at it and I happen to know that you're very open-minded on these issues and also very fair-minded. You have a reputation for that.
I was just thinking that we could have discussion on that fact of how the subcommittee should report to the committee and those findings should be approved by the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your comments, Senator Cools.
The whole idea of the subcommittee is to try and drive some form, a smaller group, to ensure that we're actually representing the interests of the committee rather than continuing to pull everyone together around those interests.
I certainly have no issue with ensuring that the whole committee, as I have in the past with other committees I've been on, understands what we're trying to do, where we're trying to go, why we're trying to get there and how we anticipate doing that. There are not meant to be secrets in the subcommittee.
Senator Cools: There are many, though. We're discovering every day that there are many.
The Chair: I appreciate that, Senator Cools, but they're not meant to be secrets. They're actually meant to —
Senator Cools: That's my point.
The Chair: — help and support this committee as it —
Senator Cools: I accept that and I laud that, and I would say to you that that is the outstanding principle, but I'm speaking about practices: the practice of securing the committee's agreement to the lists of witnesses and those other issues. That is what I'm speaking about, because there was a time that these motions would actually say that and report to the committee on these activities.
The Chair: Is that a motion you'd like to put forward?
Senator Cools: No. I just wanted some discussion because I think many colleagues are quite new and do not really have knowledge of these processes over time. The nature of power is obviously ``get more.'' So, yes, the subcommittee has the power to do this and we're giving it to them, but it's very off-putting, in a year or two, to be told that one cannot alter or add a person to a list of witnesses because you have the power to decide. That happens frequently, chairman.
I'm just wondering what your opinion is on that, that the committee is subject to the whole subcommittee's decisions. Do you have an opinion?
Senator McCoy: Why don't we just add those words?
Senator Nolin: Look, I think we have to read the second paragraph quite closely. The authority that we are giving to the subcommittee is with respect to its agenda. I think the word in French is even more comprehensive, ``le programme.''
Second, invite witnesses, which is a consequence of the first one, and schedule hearings, which is part of the program, so the agenda.
I look at the chair. I presume that the agenda is a consequence of a discussion amongst the entire committee of the full work plan —
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Nolin: — that the committee wants to adopt. So I don't see a problem with giving the authority to organize, in an orderly fashion, the program, as we say in French, in a structured agenda with witnesses and dates of hearings. I think the motion is complete, comprehensive and to the point, and I think we should adopt it.
Senator McCoy: A very elegant explanation, senator, and if I thought it were simply organizational and ``facilitational,'' I would be delighted.
What I hear you saying is that it is putting into effect the committee's wishes with regard to the agenda, which witnesses and what kind of hearings are to be held. So would it not be a simple enough thing to word it to that effect that one says, ``With respect to facilitating its agenda and inviting witnesses,'' et cetera, just add a simple word?
The Chair: Senator McCoy, I appreciate your comments and I take Senator Nolin's comments about the subcommittee being empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee. I think that is where we get our direction. It doesn't say we actually take direction and give that direction to the committee; we actually receive our authority from the committee in the first place.
I don't have an issue with your — if it's for clarity and if people would like to see that clarity. For me, I think it is clear that we are there actually to perform on behalf of this committee, not as an oversight or as a provider of information to the committee in absence of that.
If you'd like to put forward a motion, Senator McCoy.
Senator McCoy: I will move the amendment so that we add the word ``facilitate'' in the second paragraph after the word ``respect'' and before the word ``to'' so that it reads ``with respect to facilitate its agenda.''
The Chair: So remove the word ``to''?
Senator McCoy: No, ``with respect . . .''
The Chair: ``. . . to facilitate its agenda.''
Senator McCoy: Good eyes, I'd say, except it was oral. I think I put the ``to'' in the wrong place, didn't' I?
The Chair: That's okay.
Senator McCoy: So the word ``facilitate'' should follow ``with respect to'' and precede ``its agenda.'' Thank you for that.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator D. Smith: On the point that's raised here, you know I'm open-minded on this amendment, but for the record, I have always understood that the committee as a whole could overrule the subcommittee if the subcommittee went off on some — is that not correct?
Mr. Robert: Yes, and we have an example of that when we actually dealt with the question of privilege last spring. The committee, in some sense, amended the proposal put by the agenda committee to hear Mr. Beaulieu more than once. That's what happened, so in fact the practice seems to be fairly well established that the agenda committee works really on behalf of the committee and when the committee decides that it wants to follow another course, that's what will happen.
Senator D. Smith: Effectively overruled the subcommittee.
Mr. Robert: Yes.
Senator Cools: I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the notion that the subcommittees work on behalf of the committee and so on and so forth. Where the problem comes in is whether or not the committee has the right to approve what the subcommittee does. There was a time that this motion used to say ``subject to the approval of the committee.'' All of that work is ``subject to the — and there was a time when the steering committee came to the full committee with a small report on what was happening. It was voted on, and that way the steering committee got its full praises and full approval. That's what I'm talking about.
The phenomenon is that the steering committee is not a law unto itself and its powers are not absolute. In fact the steering committee is subject to the committee's approval at all times in what it's doing.
The Chair: If I may, senator, I think that is what we just heard occurred in the spring in relation to a Rules subcommittee bringing forward information that was not accepted by the committee and in fact was overruled. The opposite of approval is, I would argue, to overrule.
Senator Cools: I quite agree, but why should the rule not be clear that the subcommittee is subject to the approval of the whole committee?
The Chair: It was clear to everyone last spring and I'm sure it will be clear to everyone around the table today.
Senator Cools: I have sat on this committee for many years, colleagues.
Senator Furey: I'm really confused as to why we're even having this debate. We either give the authority to the steering committee to set the agenda subject to the approval of the full committee — every committee I've ever been involved in, the steering committee is subject to the approval of the full committee — or we debate the agenda at the full committee. It's as simple as that. I don't see any problem with the motion as it is stated.
Senator Nolin: On the question of who is in charge, the very reason that we are asked to adopt such a decision this morning is evidence that the full committee is in charge of creating, demoting, changing and amending the scope of a subcommittee. I don't see why we should add that to a motion. It's already there.
Senator Cools: Perhaps we should express an opinion on it. I would like to move an amendment. Following the words ``to schedule hearings,'' insert the words ``subject to the approval of the committee.''
The Chair: Is there any other debate? My understanding is that we go to the last amendment first. I have to notify if I'm going to vote; is that how it works? I advise if I'm going to vote.
Mr. Robert: Yes. Are you going to vote?
The Chair: Yes, I'm going to vote.
Mr. Robert: Senator Cools' subamendment.
The Chair: I will vote against that amendment and now ask others who will vote against the amendment. A show of hands against the amendment. Keep them up, please. Thanks.
Mr. Robert: Ten.
Senator Cools: We're voting on what?
The Chair: We are now voting for Senator Cools' amendment.
Mr. Robert: Two.
The Chair: We'll now go to the amendment of Senator McCoy. I will be voting for the amendment.
Senator Joyal: Could you repeat the amendment of Senator McCoy?
The Chair: That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee to facilitate its agenda, invite witnesses and schedule hearings. The word ``facilitate'' is added.
Senator Joyal: Okay.
The Chair: I will support that and ask for those voting against the amendment; those voting for the amendment; and abstentions.
Passed.
Senator Nolin: On a point of clarification, I presume that the clerk will work on the French version.
Mr. Robert: Yes.
Senator Nolin: I didn't ask what the French version was. ``Facilitate'' in French is not exactly what we think it should be.
The Chair: We are now on the substantive motion, as amended. Those in support of the amended motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary?
Carried unanimously.
Senator D. Smith: Before we leave that, perhaps we could clarify when we will determine who the third member of the subcommittee will be. Are we doing that today?
The Chair: It says, ``will be designated after the usual consultation.'' I have to been honest, I have done none. I would suggest that you and I have a discussion about the third member, if that's okay, and consult with others on the committee.
Senator D. Smith: Okay, I was seeking clarity on that.
The Chair: Motion 4.
Senator Martin: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: That the committee publish its proceedings.
Senator Cools: While we are on this subject of the publication of proceedings, this committee has a penchant for meeting in secret most of the time. I'm just wondering, chair, if this is the appropriate place to address that subject. It's very disturbing when there are large issues before the Senate and senators do not have any recourse to published proceedings in committee. In this committee — the times when I'm permitted to be on a committee —
The Chair: And you are welcome here by the way, senator. It's good to see you here.
Senator Cools: Thank you.
I've raised concern again and again about the penchant of this particular committee to meet in camera. As we will recall, two years ago we had a major overhaul of the rules, and every single one of the committee's meetings on those rules was in camera, which means that the senators are placed in the most disadvantageous position of having a huge subject before it for debate unassisted by the records of the committee.
Maybe this is not the right place, but I'm just flagging it to let us know that it is a problem we should address. This committee should meet most often in public and reserve the in-camera meetings for what they were intended for. They should be used rarely.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senator. I do agree that when we can, we should meet in public.
Senator Cools: I'm glad to hear that.
The Chair: I'm sure we will have those discussions and debates throughout as we have had in other committees in the past six months about when they should and shouldn't be in camera. I wouldn't suggest that we dictate now that they all be in public or private.
Senator Cools: I wasn't asking for a dictation. I was just saying that the propensity of this committee has been to meet in camera. You can see it expressed in many committees.
Senator Nolin: I think our rules are quite clear on the principle, which is public meetings and the exception is in camera meetings. Could I ask the table to give us enlightenment on what those principles are?
Till Heyde, Chamber Operations Clerk, Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, Senate of Canada: The relevant provision is rule 12-16(1) of the Rules of the Senate, which states:
12-16 (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) and elsewhere in these Rules, a committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing:
(a) wages, salaries and other employee benefits;
(b) contracts and contract negotiations;
(c) labour relations and personnel matters; and
(d) a draft agenda or draft report.
There is an exception relating to the Conflict of Interest Committee, which isn't relevant to the work of this committee.
Senator Nolin: It is quite clear that the principle is to hold meetings in public and the exception is in camera. Unless we can build an argument that it encompasses future business or working on the agenda, that's where we can play; otherwise, it must be public.
The Chair: It's clear. Thank you, senator.
Senator Cools: I would support that meetings should be in public, except in accordance with the exception provided for in the rules. I have seen that exception. I've seen meetings of this committee go for six, eight, ten months with no report before the committee whatsoever. I'm just putting us all on notice that I think it's an undesirable way to proceed, and I'm encouraged that the chairman and Senator Nolin are saying that the committee should be in public except for those exceptions.
The Chair: So noted.
Senator Nolin: According to the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Cools: Some would claim in the past that when meetings have gone on for years in that way, that that was an exception. However, I don't think exceptions can last that length of time. I'm with you on the spirit of the rule. I would submit to you that in the next year or so a lot of attention is going to be paid to in camera meetings in the Senate.
The Chair: Senator Cools, so noted. Let us move to the motion, please.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried unanimously. Thank you.
The next motion concerns the authorization to hold meetings and receive evidence when quorum is not present.
Senator Nolin: I move:
That pursuant to rule 12-17, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
The Chair: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next motion deals with financial reporting.
Senator Batters: Mr. Chair, I move:
That the committee adopt the draft first report prepared in accordance with rule 12-26(2).
The Chair: That report is being provided to you now, senators.
Senator Cools: One should usually wait for the document to be presented to us.
The Chair: I'm not going to carry an adoption until you have a look at it.
Senator Cools: Yes, okay, until we read it. As a matter of fact, it is out of order to move a report before it is in the hands of members.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Cools: Chairman, I am having difficulty. I thought the next item on the agenda is a financial report. Usually we will vote on our first report at the end of all the routine business of constituting the committee. I was under the impression we're still in the process of constituting and organizing the committee, including the financial report and research staff. I was under the impression that all of that is completed before we decide on the content of our first report.
The Chair: I will defer this. We will move it in a few moments. Thank you very much for that.
The next motion is on research staff.
Senator Furey: Sorry, chair, are we going to vote on the financial report?
The Chair: We deferred it.
Senator Furey: Okay.
Senator Cools: Only to the end of the meeting though.
The Chair: Did you want to move the next motion, senator?
Senator Furey: I move:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
Senator Cools: I'm just curious, chairman; how often does this committee receive bills for consideration or our estimates? When last has this committee had estimates referred to it for study, or bills or subject matter of bills?
The Chair: I'll have to refer to staff.
Senator Cools: We should know these things before these are put before us.
The Chair: That's why I'm referring to staff, senator. Thank you.
Senator Cools: But I would like it better when the chairman answers these questions.
The Chair: You would also like me to have an educated answer, I hope, senator, because it wouldn't be helpful if I didn't.
Senator Cools: And I know it won't be long before you will. I have every confidence in you, Senator White; and you know it. too.
The Chair: Rarely or not, but it does allow us the authority, senator, and without that we would have to bring in a motion at a later point.
Senator Cools: No, every committee has the power to receive a bill if the house asks for it. The committee does not have to give itself the power to study a bill; the house decides that in asking the committee to study it.
The Chair: But this says ``the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain . . . .''
Senator Cools: That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts, that the chair be authorized to seek Senate services of each counsel and other personnel as may be necessary for the committee's examination and consideration of this, so this is more about you rather than anybody else.
The Chair: In granting the authority, are you concerned about us having the authority?
Senator Cools: Well, I'm just curious as to this committee rarely studies bills and rarely receives estimates. As a matter of fact, very few Senate committees receive estimates other than National Finance.
The Chair: Rarely.
Senator Cools: Right. It does happen once in a blue moon but not that often, and for good reason too, because the Senate Finance Committee does not let go of its estimates. It doesn't parcel them out like in the House of Commons. I was just wondering why we feel there's a need for that.
The Chair: Did you want to put forward an amendment, senator?
Senator Cools: I'm just curious, maybe there's some plan in the future to bring something in and we don't know that.
The Chair: Senator Furey, please.
Senator Furey: In reply to Senator Cools, my understanding is that in the off chance or, as Senator Cools would say, on the rare occasion that we have the authority to do it, what is wrong with that? I don't really see any problem with that.
Senator Cools: Also, you don't have to put it in this way. If the house wants us, if the Senate wants us to study a bill they will tell us so and do that by the reference on the floor of the Senate. It is not related to this authority in this section at all. The Senate may ask whichever committee it wants to study any issue or any bill at any given time.
Senator Furey: Except as you said, Senator Cools, on the off chance, on the possible rare occasion when this committee may feel it's necessary to look at the subject matter of a bill or in fact a bill itself, why should we not have that authority to do that?
Senator Cools: Because in this section you're trying to expand the purpose of the Rules Committee as outlined in the rule book.
The Chair: Well, I don't agree with you.
Senator Cools: You're trying to expand it gradually. It's a speculative matter anyway and it's largely hypothetical, but if the Senate wants a committee to study a bill they will provide that authority in the reference.
The Chair: Senator Cools, would you like to make an amendment to this motion?
Senator Cools: No, I was trying to find out why it's here.
The Chair: Because it allows us in that, as you would say, ``blue moon'' moment to be able to actually hear bills if we had to and get the advice. If you'd like to make an amendment we will consider that and if not we will go to the vote on the motion, please.
Senator Cools: Whatever I say will be defeated anyways. I just wanted to know why it's there and I think in the event — well, I don't think Senator Furey —
The Chair: I think he helped to provide clarity actually.
Senator Cools: Yes, he was very helpful, but that doesn't give us information as to why it was put before us today. Somebody put this in here today for us to vote on it.
The Chair: Because it's possible — and I will quote you again — in the ``blue moon'' moment we may actually get to hear a bill in this place.
On the motion, yeas or nays?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Senator Cools: I would like to abstain on that and I would like the record to show that, please, in the minutes.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
The next motion concerns the authority to commit funds and certify accounts.
Senator Unger: I move:
That, pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds to be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee to be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts to be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senator.
On this motion, carried?
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Senator Cools: Abstention.
The Chair: Abstention; thank you very much, Senator Cools.
Senator Cools: I'm just wondering, maybe the time for debate has passed, and I think it may not be clear to all members that these are debatable items. The reason they are put before us is for debate and some may not be aware of that.
The Chair: Okay; thank you very much.
Senator Cools: But I'm just wondering if at any point in the process the chairman makes a report to the committee on these activities. What was just adopted doesn't require the chair to report to the committee. And my experience for those who are —
No, it does not. The text, as just read, does not require the chair — you can fall back and say, ``Of course a chair has to report on the committee,'' but in practice, the committee members will have very little knowledge of any of these events, these ongoing details. That is my concern.
The Chair: I would argue to the contrary that the authority the chair has is only derived from this committee.
Senator Cools: That is quite true. I agree with that. I don't question that, but I'm talking about in practice. The committee will rarely hear any of this.
The Chair: I am not sure what ``practice'' you continue to refer to. And if there are concerns, honestly, I welcome you to raise concerns about the practice of this chair or this deputy chair.
Senator Cools: Well, we can have a debate on this lot. But in recent years, many committees, committee chairs and steering committees rely on the staff of the committee and less on the membership for advice and support in terms of what to do and what not to do.
The Chair: I don't expect we will see that as a problem.
Senator Cools: Then I feel reassured — very reassured.
But I am saying to you that in the hurly-burly and in the rough-and-tumble of meetings and being busy, members are not aware that these actions are going on. So the committee has to make a deliberate choice and a decision to bring these matters before us. I have no doubt that you will, so I am attempting to give you support — to encourage you — in that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cools: But it is quite an onerous responsibility, and we all know that the Senate has a very difficult year or two ahead of us. So I think we should protect ourselves as much as possible and widen the sharing of decision making. I think it's in your interests that the committee participate and support you in that.
Senator Nolin: There are many steps such that the concerns of Senator Cools could be addressed. First, when we are adopting the budget — so future spending by the committee. And by the way, whatever we decide will be then referred to Internal Economy, which will also look into what the committee intends to do with that money.
When that money is spent, you have to report back at the end of the period. Later on today, we may be asked to look into past funding of this committee. It's going to be a posteriori, I understand, but still some questions can be asked as to why that money was spent, who authorized it and for what purpose.
So I think we have all the checks around the institution to make sure the money is well spent, and the reason it's spent is according to the rules and the law.
Senator Cools: I have no doubt that the chair is a man of great integrity and an honest man. I have no doubts whatsoever. I am not questioning the process of honesty here or moral scruples. What I'm questioning is the practice of the committee; that it is important that the committee participates in hearing from the chair.
We must understand witnesses appear before committees. We know that so much money is paid to witnesses' expenses, travel and so on so forth, and a lot is handled as a matter of course. Every now and then, something goes horribly wrong and someone raises something on the floor of the Senate. That is when we begin to hear of a problem.
So I think it would be good practice if the chair institutes a policy or practice of reporting to us from time to time on these expenditures. And for your own safekeeping, I think you should be doing it, too.
The Chair: Thank you for that, senator. I do have confidence that the work this committee does is important, that it will be transparent and will include the matter in which we expend money, in relation specifically to a report that we will speak to later. I know that having been here sitting on behalf of someone else that the discussion around expending those funds was well thrashed about this room prior to any funding being expended, so I am not concerned about that either, but I do appreciate your comments.
Senator Cools: We come back again to the fact that all those meetings have been in camera.
The Chair: I do appreciate the comments.
Senator Cools: Thank you.
The Chair: Motion No. 9, if I can have a mover, please.
Senator Nolin: With great pleasure, I move No. 9, which I will read.
[Translation]
I will read it to you, dear colleagues.
I move:
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.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Those in agreement?
Senator Cools: What travel are we talking about? This committee rarely travels.
The Chair: Then it will be rare that we have this dialogue.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: What I am proposing would allow or empower the subcommittee to authorize, designate as required, one or more members of the committee and the staff required to travel on behalf of the committee.
It is implicit in my motion that, when the committee decides to travel — and will obviously have obtained permission from internal economy so that the budget required is allocated — I am moving that it be the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure that designates, as required, the individuals who will travel.
The Chair: And that will be possible with the motion.
[English]
Senator Cools: Okay, but my question has to do with the idea that the motion as read by Senator Nolin does not really refer to committee study or does not really refer to committee travel. It seems to be speaking about individual members travelling on behalf of the committee. It's not quite the same thing.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: No, but I am quite familiar with the motion I presented. You are the one who does not seem to exactly understand the subtlety of what I am proposing.
It is not about committee travel. Rather it would empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to authorize individuals, be they committee members or staff, who need to travel on behalf of the committee to do so.
[English]
Senator Cools: Right, but committee travel, colleagues, is not authorized by the committee itself. For a committee to travel on a study, it has to get an order of reference from the Senate. To the extent that we know that, I don't believe this motion is addressing the question, in general, of the whole committee travelling.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: That is not what I am proposing. You want to read something into my motion that it does not contain. It states simply what I read, and nothing more. I want the committee to be empowered to allow travel on behalf of the committee, be it one or several committee members or a staff member, all on behalf of the committee. Nothing more, nothing less.
[English]
Senator Cools: I can read very clearly what it says. I'm just trying to find out from the chair: What does this mean? I mean, how many assignments does this committee have, say, in a year that it sends staff or senators off?
The Chair: I hope you're not suggesting that I've already determined what work we may or may not do in the future. This allows us the opportunity to do that, though, if necessary.
Senator Cools: I just wonder if we could give some examples. How many times in the past year have we sent staff —
The Chair: Zero.
Senator Cools: So we are coming down to another zero. So we are doing these things ``in case.''
The Chair: It gives us the opportunity if we need to. Would you like an amendment to this, senator?
Senator Cools: No, I'm just trying to understand why some of this is coming before me. I have a problem. I'm trying to figure out why we're seeking such large general authority for activities, which you, by your own words, say are exceptional.
The Chair: Authorities are often given for those exceptional opportunities, rather than bringing them forward each and every time.
Senator Cools: These authorities here are routine.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Chair, I want to be clear: I'm not suggesting that you will appropriate funds that you cannot otherwise ask for. All the money you will be empowered to authorize to be spent will first be authorized by Internal Economy.
The Chair: That's correct.
Senator Nolin: That's my understanding. That has not changed. So if you're asking an important amount of money for travel, we may ask you why and then Internal will ask you why. If everybody agrees, then you will be able to spend it and authorize who will spend it.
If you want an example, we may be asked to study amendments to the rules, and we may decide to ask Mr. Robert or Mr. Heyde to travel somewhere in the world to knock on doors to understand the full extent of the implication of those changes. That could happen.
The Chair: I agree.
Senator Cools: If I understand the intention of your rule, I have a problem — I think it's clearly intelligible. I don't think my problem is comprehension. My problem is practice.
The Chair: We continue to talk about past practice. I think we need to —
Senator Cools: My experience in subcommittees, for example, is they may authorize individual senators to attend conferences on their behalf, but I also understand that some senators are chosen and some are never chosen. So in a case like that, is there a process? How does this work?
I want to be crystal clear, because we are going into a period of time where there is a lot of talk everywhere about the Senate and travel.
Senator D. Smith: Many seek but few are chosen.
The Chair: You've made it crystal clear, so thank you very much.
Senator Cools: I'm never chosen, so I can speak with full authority, senators. I've had a lot of experience.
The Chair: It's good that we have you here, Senator Cools.
The Chair: But if I may, on this motion —
Senator Cools: Yes. But we could also say some of these matters are —
The Chair: Yes.
Approved?
Some Hon. Senators: Approved.
The Chair: Abstention or carried?
Senator Cools: I'm making a point.
The Chair: No, no. You abstained the last two. I did not want to miss your point, that's all.
Senator Cools: It's not a big thing, because we won't even have a full record.
The Chair: Motion Number 10: Designation of members travelling. I'm getting people afraid to move motions here.
Senator Comeau. You moved Motion No. 10.
Senator Nolin.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I move that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
(1) determine whether any member of the committee is on ``official business'' for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
(2) consider any member of the committee to be on ``official business'' if that member is (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
[English]
The Chair: On debate?
Senator Cools: Someone else can lead for a change.
Senator Comeau: This one is fairly straightforward. It is to stop someone from going out there and using this committee as an excuse to be out on public business. Therefore, if someone is authorized on behalf of this committee to be out somewhere, wherever it may be, to either represent the committee or to attend a function or whatever, it is authorized by this committee. There has to be the authority. Otherwise, the members of this committee cannot use this as an excuse for attendance purposes or for claiming purposes on expenses. I'm not sure if this was to initially cover —
Senator Nolin: It is not even for expenses. It's only the authority to use the expression ``official business.''
Senator Comeau: But if they were somewhere and said, ``I'm on official business on behalf of committee, so therefore I'm making a claim,'' not to this committee but to the administration, this puts a stop to it. This is a control measure that absolutely needs to be there. Otherwise, people might start using this as a means to claim expenses which they should not.
Senator D. Smith: You mean going to Vegas.
Senator Comeau: Using my hat of Chair of the Internal Economy Committee, this is an absolute must to have on all committees.
The Chair: And particularly for this committee at this point in time, I agree.
Senator Cools: I thank Senator Comeau for his very sensitive intervention, and I think this is a desirable thing. Is this the first time that this is appearing before this committee?
The Chair: No.
Senator Cools: I didn't think so. I haven't been on the committee for a few years.
The Chair: All committees have it.
Senator Cools: I have no problem with it really, except it seems to me that everything is being loaded onto the subcommittee rather than to the committee, so we come back to the other question: Is this process a confidential process? If a member of the committee comes and says that there is a conference on rules and parliamentary process somewhere and they would like to go, who is going to make the choice? The subcommittee is going to decide that that one member can represent the committee, not the other member, or is there process?
The Chair: The clarity for me, senator, comes in the final paragraph: ``That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken . . . .'' It puts an immediate reporting from the subcommittee's perspective.
Senator Cools: I think this is a relevant rule. I would say it is a timely rule.
The Chair: Question?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. No abstentions? Thank you.
Number 11: Travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
Senator Martin: I move:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines 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 be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
The Chair: Discussion? Questions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Communications, Motion No. 12.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I move:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct communication officer(s) assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate for the purposes of their development and implementation; and
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.
[English]
Senator Cools: I support wholeheartedly, with tremendous enthusiasm, public publication in media of committee proceedings. I would love the Senate to be broadcast as well. You remember there was a study before this committee four or five years ago by Senator Hugh Segal.
The Chair: I'm sure it will be discussed again.
Senator Nolin: On that item, I will approve it as I moved it, but I think it will be appropriate for the steering committee to have a thorough look into the communication of the affairs of our committee.
I was not a member of this committee for a few years, but I suspect that the committee did not receive the proper public attention of the hard work of this committee. There is a reason for that. Communication is probably lacking in terms of plans, direction and making sure that the plan is properly fulfilled.
I urge the steering committee to have a look at the communication aspect of our work and make sure what we do is known to Canadians.
Senator Cools: I would love to wholeheartedly support Senator Nolin's proposal, and I would like to suggest that at the earliest opportunity the entire committee have a discussion. I'm not talking about conclusions but about a discussion on the subject of communications and uplifting and upholding and communicating the work of this committee. It is an extremely important thing, because we are now living in a time when the average Canadian is totally alienated from the language of Parliament, the language of governance, the language we use daily here, the lexicon that's been lost. So I would support you double time.
The Chair: Thanks for that, senator. We don't have the time.
Question?
Senator Comeau: Question.
The Chair: Carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Now we will move back to Motion No. 7 that Senator Batters brought forward.
Senator Batters: No. 6, actually.
The Chair: Sorry. Thank you very much. Congratulations to your football team on the weekend.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
The Chair: The senator brought forward that the committee adopt the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule 12-26(2). Everyone has had the first report in front of them.
Senator Comeau: Question.
The Chair: Question.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you very much.
We will conclude our meeting in a few seconds here. I do agree with the comments today about the importance of this.
Time slot.
Senator Comeau: We can't change those.
The Chair: It's just for information. Okay.
I want to thank everyone. I think the importance of this committee probably hasn't been at a greater point in a while, and I appreciate the people who are sitting here. I also remind people that attendance is extremely important. Senator Cools, attendance is extremely important. Our next meeting will be Tuesday, 9:30 to 11:30, next week, not this Wednesday.
Any other business before we adjourn?
Senator Nolin: I think it would be appropriate if at our next meeting we could have a general discussion on the future work of the committee.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Nolin: So we have a week to bring together our ideas.
The Chair: That is a great idea.
Senator D. Smith: I also think it would be reasonable for us to target that whoever the third person is going to be on the subcommittee, we try and have a consensus on that for next week.
The Chair: You and I will have a discussion this afternoon, Senator Smith.
Senator D. Smith: See if we can address it.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)