Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 2 - Evidence - June 10, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 10, 2014
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day, at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), for the consideration of a draft report on amendments to the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament for June 10. Welcome to everyone this morning. I hope you had a great weekend.
On the agenda for today will be to renew the discussion and dialogue around a potential change in rules or the subcommittee report, I guess, in relation to private members' bills in particular.
As a follow-up to the request made at the last meeting, honourable senators, we received yesterday's notes prepared by research staff. I want to thank them very much for the work they did — I know they were hard at it all last week — particularly in relation to non-government business and how it's conducted in the House of Lords, the Australian Senate, the French Senate and the U.S. Senate, although the U.S. Senate is less applicable. Also a short note relating to how Senate public bills — those are not introduced by the government — are dealt with in the Canadian House of Commons has been shared and circulated. In addition, the Subcommittee on Broadcasting prepared and circulated a short briefing note on some of the factors taken into consideration when preparing this proposal.
Before we go further, I would like to provide a short point of clarification. The subcommittee's report was provided to the committee on May 13. At last week's meeting an alternate proposal was provided that could require notice and would allow debate on the notice that debate be not further adjourned. Thus far we've had general discussion on two texts, neither of which has been moved for adoption to this point. Until it's clear which one senators generally prefer, the approach works well and is quite acceptable.
For those who are wondering, the meeting is in public as it has been throughout.
I will ask Senator Nolin to do a Reader's Digest version of the subcommittee's work to date and we will move from there.
Senator Nolin: First, in the package we all received yesterday, I think an important document is the note. Senator Fraser asked us to reflect on the rationale that the subcommittee developed to prepare the report. That note is quite comprehensive explaining why we took the approach.
I will not go through all the specific procedure in the various upper chambers that were reviewed by researchers. I don't know if you have any questions, but if we focus on the British House of Lords you will discover, if you have not already read it, that the mover introduced the limits. There is a bracket, so depending on what the mover proposes, that will influence the length of debate by each speaker.
If it is moved to have a debate of less than two hours, the time allotted to everybody to speak is quite short, but at the other end of the spectrum you can have a debate over eight hours. That is also open to the mover to decide and of course it's up to the chamber to decide if they agree on the motion to limit the debate.
Chair, I don't know if you want me to go into more specific details or do you want to open the discussion? I understand we all had the documentation yesterday and maybe some did not have the time to read it or they may have questions already.
The Chair: I think that's fine for now and I'll call on Senator Fraser.
Senator Fraser: Thank you to the staff and the subcommittee for providing the documentation. I have a couple of questions, Senator Nolin.
The document I'm looking at from the House of Lords, I didn't understand it quite in the way that you just proposed it. This is the document dated June 9, and on private members' bills it says there is no time limit on the bill's debate and there is no formal timetable for the passage of the bill.
The party whips will agree on when to set the bill down for debate and on an estimate of time required for the bill to pass in the House of Lords; however, because backbenchers may not be accountable to the whips, the bill's progress may take longer than expected.
I was very interested when you said it was the proposer of the bill — I think you said — who determined time; where did you get that?
Senator Nolin: If you look at page 3, and I can ask researchers to go deeper in my explanation, at the bottom is the heading "Speaking Time in Debates with Formal Time Limits." That is the procedure that they have that "could" be introduced. It's not a "must," but it could be introduced to limit the debate. Then the proposer will, in his motion, specifically ask for debate of four to six hours, two to three and a half hours, a debate of one and a half hours, or less than one hour. So that's why we have those.
Maybe I can call on the researchers because they did the research, please.
Sebastian Spano, Analyst, Library of Parliament: We've structured this according to certain kinds of debates. They talk about debates with formal time limits and debates without formal time limits. Perhaps Eric can speak to it because he did this part of the note.
Eric Pelot, Analyst, Library of Parliament: The division in the House of Lords is based on whether there's a formal time limit or no formal time limit. Bills fall under the category of "no formal time limit." However, there are mechanisms to allow the lords to self-limit the time for debate ahead of the debate through a motion, as Senator Nolin has pointed out. In addition, if there is no agreement ahead of time on the time limit set, there is the mechanism of closure, which is available to the House of Lords to close debate after it has gone on for a satisfactory amount of time. So even where there are no formal time limits, there are mechanisms available to the House of Lords to impose those limits as they see fit.
Senator Fraser: You don't discuss in this paper their use or rules for closure, unless I've missed something. Terminating debate — I'm sorry, yes, you do; used only in exceptional cases.
Senator Nolin: And the Speaker warns everybody that the effect of such a motion is quite drastic.
Senator Fraser: Actually, they may call this closure; we would call it the previous question: "Can the question now be put?"
Till Heyde, Acting Clerk of the Committee: The closure in the House of Lords can't be debated. It's moved, the Lord on the Woolsack will remind the house, as Senator Nolin said, that it's most exceptional and the house discourages its use, and then if the lord insists on proposing it, the question is put immediately. If adopted, that terminates debate.
Senator Nolin: But the previous question in our procedure is quite specific and debatable. It is the actual question and not the entire question, right?
Senator Fraser: I think it's quite clear they don't like that. The way they prefer to go is to have prior agreement before the debate even starts on how long it would take, which would be a monumental change in our culture if we were to go that way.
Senator Nolin: And we are not recommending that. That's why the note.
The Chair: If I may, Senator Smith had a question in relation to this.
Senator D. Smith: Just to clarify your comment: When you said that then the vote is taken immediately, how do you define "immediately"? Do they have a bell, or just instantly everybody who is there —
Mr. Heyde: There will be no debate. There is no debate on the motion for closure. Whatever the normal bell's processes are, they will be followed. I'm trying to dig up the text, what the lord on the rules has to say before the function of closure is put. It's quite dramatic.
Senator Fraser: It's in Erskine and May, I know.
For Senator Nolin: This is about the note from the subcommittee, which I was very glad to see, and I thank you very much for it.
I'm a little puzzled about the argument that the procedure proposed here would make matters clearer to the public. I'm not at all sure in my own mind that it would, but let me ask you: Was the subcommittee trying to go at the much criticized — though not by me — repetition of "stand, stand, stand," which we often see; and if so, did the subcommittee look at any other ways to avoid repeated "stand, stand, stand"?
Senator Nolin: To your latter question, the answer is yes, but we decided to focus first on time limitation on private members' bills.
Senator Fraser: Why?
Senator Nolin: The first answer is yes, because when you start thinking about how to reorganize the Order Paper — because that's what it is — it involves the role of leadership on both sides, who should be part of that, when should that take place, how to organize and to limit and to say, "Okay, today we're going to study only Item No. 1, 12, 24 and 33," and organize the debate.
You have that in the French Senate, where the presiding officer is having the conference of the chairpersons. They decide for the week, and then the day, what will be on the Order Paper today. Those who want to speak, they alert whips and leadership on political groups: "I want to speak on Item No. 33." So that's how they organize. But we're not there.
To your question, yes, we didn't explore avenues, but we definitely noticed what the implications are of moving into that direction.
Senator Fraser: Did you think, for example, of the possibility of having the table call not each individual item but categories, and then wait to see if anybody wishes to speak? For example, instead of saying "Commons public bills, second reading" and then call every item, just say "Commons public bills, second reading" and wait, and the Speaker would look to see if anybody wishes to speak on any of those bills. Did you think about that?
Senator Nolin: Personally, yes, but not the subcommittee. That raises the question: What about leadership? Every day, every morning, you, as deputy leader, and your counterpart, meet to look at the scroll and to organize the afternoon sitting. What you are proposing would eliminate the need.
Senator Fraser: No, it wouldn't; truly, it wouldn't. I've sat in on a lot of scroll meetings, Senator Nolin, and it wouldn't. What happens now, and presumably would continue to happen, is that for government bills in particular, the government tries to get a clear notice of notion of who will be speaking and when. Other people who wish to speak notify their leadership, whether it is on a government bill or, in the cases that concern us, non-government stuff. But not infrequently somebody stands to speak who has not notified the leadership. That can happen either when an item is called and somebody gets to their feet and decides they want to say something, or, more interestingly, it can happen when somebody has spoken and you get a spontaneous debate following upon the remarks of the person who spoke. We saw a bit of that recently in connection with the insurance company issue, and also in connection with the desecration of war memorials bill, where I think those are the best moments in the Senate. I think they are just terrific, and they happen. They are not decided at scroll; they're really not.
Senator Nolin: To your question, we have not discussed that, but definitely it's a discussion we could have. It's going to be up to the committee to ask us to explore those avenues.
The Chair: Are you finished, Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: For the nonce.
Senator McCoy: I have a question. What is the point of this? I don't understand the point of this. Why?
Senator Nolin: I'm answering a question of Senator Fraser.
Senator McCoy: No, no. Why would one want to limit debate?
Senator Nolin: To be fair. If you read the note we prepared, it's basically to be fair. What is the point of having an item on the Order Paper for the length of session, which could be two years, because basically nobody is speaking about it and just postponing and postponing? I think the fairness for a senator who is proposing a bill is to go through it and to at least put the question.
Senator McCoy: What has fairness got to do with it, whether it's on the Order Paper or not? What harm is there —
Senator Nolin: Because it can drag on indefinitely.
Senator McCoy: So what?
Senator Nolin: We thought it was not fair. We may be wrong. That's why the committee will decide if it's fair or not fair.
Senator McCoy: I just don't understand the evil you are trying to correct. I see it as mischief.
Senator Nolin: Don't read my mind. Don't do like the courts. I'm trying to be fair.
Senator McCoy: I see nothing unfair about leaving an item on an Order Paper. No mischief is happening.
The Chair: Nothing would suggest that it has to be voted on. Nothing states that after three hours of debate and after it's been called 15 times, you must call for a vote. It would allow the sponsor or the critic an opportunity to call for a vote after those are met at each of the two readings. Nothing obligates them.
Senator D. Smith: Here is another question: Is it reasonable for the rules to allow one senator to frustrate the chamber as a whole from ever being able to vote on a matter during an entire session, or should there be some mechanism where at least a decision can be made by the Senate as a whole? What should be the minimum requirements prior to that occurring, and is it reasonable for one senator to hold everything up for time and eternity?
Senator Fraser: As a supplementary on that point, members of this committee about a year ago were greatly frustrated by the fact that three of our reports were held up and held up and held up. The fact is they were held up by the Leader of the Government, by the then Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate; and had a vote occurred, the Deputy Leader of the Government would have instructed his troops how to vote, and I suspect that the reports would not have carried.
That is very different from saying that an individual senator can hold things up forever. We've changed our rules so that cannot be done anymore. You can only adjourn once, as we're not supposed to say "reset the clock." After that you have to find somebody else, so it's no longer the case that an individual senator can delay things forever. If that was the problem, that has been solved.
Senator Cools: Senator McCoy says the mischief is really what you are trying to fix, because the house already has the ability to deny a person standing it, so I do not understand what the problem is.
The place where there is a problem is when the government leaders decide that they're not going to let something move, and it does not move. I do not see what the problem is, as Senator McCoy has said. What is the mischief that we're trying to or wanting to correct or desirous of correcting? What is the mischief in that one individual?
The Chair: I think the discussion surrounds having a path forward for a private member's bill, not about whether or not any individual, whether they be the leader or deputy leader of either side, have a path forward. If I need to find people to speak to get to my three hours so I can get to a vote, as a sponsor I would have the ability to do that. Whether I win or lose almost becomes a bit moot, as we see with one private member's bill we've had sitting now for over a year, Bill C-290. Many of us would like to get to the point where we have a vote, and we'd be able to do that if this were in place today, as an example.
Senator Cools: We can do that at any time.
The Chair: We can't, actually.
Senator Cools: No, we can, by a vote or even a motion to that effect.
The Chair: We're one speaker short of meeting it, actually. If we had this in place right now, we'd be able to force a vote.
Senator Cools: We don't need this. Quite frankly, I don't think we need this at all.
The Chair: I understand that.
Senator Cools: I really don't understand. The government, as it is, assumed these powers unto itself in a set of rule changes some time back.
The Chair: So we're clear, this subcommittee was me, Senator Nolin and Senator Joyal. This wasn't the government sitting there and drafting this. In fact, it has pretty fair support from all sides of the Senate, I would suggest. I don't think this —
Senator Cools: The problem is I'm not a "side."
The Chair: No, my point was this —
Senator Cools: It's a big problem.
The Chair: That's why you are here, Senator Cools.
Senator Cools: Is that why I'm here, because I'm not a side?
The Chair: I think it's appreciated that you're here to present your point. My point is this wasn't the government sitting there saying, "Let's draft this."
Senator Cools: I'm not saying that it was. I'm saying that you have not established to me convincingly or clearly that this rule change is needed. I do not find that the notes, the document which says "notes prepared by the subcommittee," I don't find that those notes make a case that this is required.
I'm not a member of any caucus and I don't group think, so perhaps my perspective is a little different.
I don't accept, for example, the last paragraph of the note at page 1. They want changes. It says:
For the subcommittee this not only includes the mechanics of broadcasting, but also changes that could help make Senate proceedings more transparent to Canadians who watch how the institution conducts its business.
There is no transparency in any complex proceeding. I don't know what the word "transparency" even means there. The nature of legalistic proceedings is that, of necessity, they are difficult to follow. I don't believe for a moment that the public needs this.
My feeling is if the public had more people, more senators, more members of Parliament who actually employ the lexicon of Parliament and the rules of Parliament in their daily work, they would keep refreshing the knowledge in people's minds. Canadians have lost, have been robbed, of the vocabulary and lexicon of Parliament. I do not know any member of the government who even speaks in the lexicon.
Maybe that's the first we should do. We should reinstitute the use of the language ourselves. That would contribute greatly to Canadians understanding more. The average Canadian now doesn't even know what second reading means. So what are we going to do, get rid of second reading so it would be easy for them to follow?
Senator Nolin: I will give you one example, Senator Cools. In the previous session, Senator Cowan introduced an interesting bill on genetic discrimination. It was so interesting that the government even introduced that in its own Speech from the Throne, but the bill sat there for a year. It was reintroduced by Senator Cowan, sat there until last week and then it was moved to committee.
So imagine not every Canadian but one Canadian watching and reading the Notice Paper, which is open to the public, and interested in such a bill and noticing that it was in the Speech from the Throne. Reading what he or she can on the Order Paper, watching to see where that bill is, where is it moving? It's moving nowhere.
Transparency is a Canadian interested in such an interesting subject who followed the debate and wants to see movement. Why? Probably that Canadian has the same interest as Senator Cowan.
Senator Cools: But, senator, I have to tell you, I have moved many bills in this place and I've never had one studied by a committee. You helped to kill off one or two yourself. Canadians weren't wondering — and I was very famous and people were tracking my bills. Canadians weren't wondering what had happened. Canadians understood very clearly that the government wanted it dead. People do have some understanding of the mischiefs of power. I'm quite prepared to move any initiative, have it debated and win a fair vote, but what goes on is hardly fair.
Senator Nolin: A fair vote is exactly what we're proposing.
Senator Cools: This is not what you're proposing. Your proposal is to terminate, to end debate and to inhibit private members' abilities even more.
Senator Nolin: Senator Cools, if you look at the conditions, there are only two: 15 days on the Order Paper and three hours of debate.
Senator Cools: I'm still not convinced. The rules are not there to serve somebody's convenience if they do not like something and therefore just turn it off. As it is, there is so little debate in the Senate. Very little debate, and we want to make it less.
The Chair: As it came from the subcommittee, I think everyone felt this would increase the amount of debate.
Senator Cools: I don't think so.
The Chair: I understand that.
Senator Cools: I don't see how it can.
The Chair: I think it would.
Senator Cools: Less cannot equal more.
The Chair: But you have to meet three hours at each —
Senator Cools: Any day of the week I could debate for you on many subjects for three hours if you wanted.
The Chair: I'm sure you could, senator.
Senator Cools: I don't see what the problem is. The problem is you are imposing a limitation on free speech.
Senator Martin: Although on the proposed amendment it talks about terminating debate on an item of Other Business, I recall Senator Nolin and others saying that this was a means to encourage debate.
I want to underscore that word "encourage." When certain items have been on the Order Paper or the Notice Paper for many sitting days and we stand certain items, under the current rules, even if the critic or the sponsor or someone else tries to encourage or move an item forward by speaking to it, it can be adjourned as many times as there are senators in the chamber. To try and explain to Canadians, whether via email or in conversation, how we can move a certain item forward to the next stage, it's very difficult to explain under the current rules and justify why it has been sitting there for a year, a year and a half or two years.
Although it is terminating debate, I see it as a means to encourage and bring to question various items on the Order Paper so that senators, in that moment, can rise or stand in support or oppose that particular item. I'm trying to make a case, but I may not have done as compelling of a job as Senator Cools. I respect all the senators who have had far more experience than I have, but as I have experienced our chamber sittings — and on certain items where people are asking how can it just be there, including members of the house — to try to explain under our current rules how we can move a certain item forward is something that makes this discussion important. If we have an opportunity to adopt certain amendments, we'll bring this to the Senate chamber so we can have this debate in the chamber as well. I think it is a way to be more responsible to the public, as well as to encourage the kind of debate that I think all of these items deserve.
As the current deputy leader, and in my discussions with Senator Fraser, we know that there are members in our respective caucuses who would like to see certain items brought to the question. If we can find a way to do that, I would support the amendments.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, listening to this debate for a number of weeks now, one of the things that is a pebble in my shoe is that we absolutely value the debate we have in the Senate. We have continuity; we value the debate. Although we belong to parties, we are much more independent. Therefore, we have more private members' bills. A private member's bill is one way of not just showing independence but bringing representation of minorities or other issues. For example, I brought forward the heritage bill, which is not something that I've seen in the other house for a long time. It is something that we can look at. If there is a feeling that after 15 parliamentary days and three hours it's over — whatever you want — we would really stop that debate.
I am not against change. I know what you're saying. I'm not against that, either. What I'm against is that this is perceived as stopping people who have independent voices from speaking. That's not what the Senate is about. I'd like to have a discussion as to what it would look like so people wouldn't feel threatened.
I still have a concern — and neither of our leaders would do it, so I'm not talking about our present leaders — that either of our leaders could speak for three hours, and then what? Is there the intention to stop it?
This is something I've been thinking a lot about — not that I'm suggesting that procedure; don't get me wrong — and that is that in Committee of the Whole only the leader has 10 minutes to speak. I'm not saying that the leader should have 10 minutes, but is there a way that we have a two-hour committee time so each leader can spend an hour to speak? Even they get only 10 minutes, but of course they can ask again.
If we're going to look at all of us, we need to look at what is fair. I think, chair, we should have a discussion about what would be fair. What would independent-minded people like me feel is fair? Although I'm an independent Liberal senator, I still feel that I'm more independent than others. I have two private members' bills in the Senate at the moment where I've felt very much heard, so I have no issue. However, I think we need to build that confidence amongst ourselves that this is not to quieten private members' bills. This is to empower private members' bills. Let's have that debate first.
The Chair: I'm not sure that you were here at one of the earlier meetings, senator, so I apologize, but we looked at, in the last session, how many bills would have met the test. It was one bill, 377, which actually was defeated. That was the only bill that met the test of three hours.
Senator McCoy: It was amended.
The Chair: Okay. So it was amended. My point, though, is that's the only bill that met the three hours, 15 calls. That's the only bill.
I think the opportunity to structure and facilitate more debate is what we will end up seeing. In your case, and in your private members' bills, if you want to get to a vote, then you will try to bring more people to the table to speak. I think that's the path we talked about.
Senator Martin: Rule 7-3(1) says:
(f) Senators may speak for a maximum of 10 minutes each, provided that:
(i) the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition may each speak for up to 30 minutes . . . .
Senator Nolin: That's on the motion.
The Chair: On the motion, yes.
Senator Martin: You're talking about in general.
Senator Nolin: On the debate motion, they still have their unlimited speaking time.
Senator Martin: Thank you. I was looking at those times.
Senator D. Smith: I'm still open-minded on this.
Senator Jaffer, you posed the question, which I'm going to invite you to answer, when you asked what would be fair. I'd be interested in what you think would be fair.
When I look at this chart at the top of page 4, from the House of Lords, the top amount is four to six hours. Do you think that would be fair? What do you think would be fair?
My philosophy in this committee is that to solve this, we still have to try to achieve a consensus on both sides — not unanimity. I've never been in that total unanimity camp. What do you think would be fair? Do you have a proposal?
Senator Jaffer: Thanks, David, for putting me in the hot seat; that's fine. I thought you were on my side.
What I think is fair is that I'm always open to there being open debate. But we do know that we live in a political world. After you bring a bill forward — and I've had this happen to me — it gets defeated. That's okay, too. That's the political reality. However, if there were a way to guarantee — and I'm throwing another thing in this — to get a bill to committee after that time, I would be very open to this idea. Otherwise, private members' bills will come, they will be defeated and that will be the end of it.
If there was a way to get more debate at committee, that would give me the assurance that the work I put into a bill will not come three hours, 15 days, and it's out. There will genuinely be the effort: Okay, this will be studied. After it's studied, we live in the reality of a political world and majorities, but at least there's been a full debate about an idea a senator has that would improve the lives of her community. That's what I would like to see.
The Chair: Senator Fraser, did you have your hand up again?
Senator Fraser: Of course, but not until everybody else is done.
The Chair: It's a free-for-all some days.
Senator Fraser: I think Senator Jaffer makes an interesting point about committee study. At the moment, particularly with private members' bills that come from our side, when they make it to committee, very often they go to committee to die. By dying, I mean not even getting a hearing at the committee, depending on how heavy that committee's load is.
There are a couple of things that occur to me. One is that the dynamic here, in practice, will be that the majority of the day will have the power, essentially, to kill private members' bills that it doesn't like. It has that power now, but that power would be intensified. Whether the bills came from one of its own members or, more probably, from opposition, that is what would end up happening. If this mechanism were in use, it's the majority that would say, "No, we want to kill debate on this. We want it dead. We want it gone."
I find that a very worrisome prospect. It seems to me that that's almost the nuclear bomb. We shouldn't be looking at what amounts to the last resort before we start looking at first resorts.
Second, as I did last week, I'd like to draw attention to the disparity in treatment between the House of Commons and the Senate of each other's private members' bills. When we send a Senate private member's bill to the House of Commons, it goes to the bottom of the order of precedence and there it is quite likely to die. When they send us bills, they get pretty well treated. I haven't done any research on this, but my sense is that one private member's bill from the Senate, maybe per Parliament, gets passed. I would be willing to bet that we in the Senate have passed more Commons private members' bills in this Parliament than they have passed Senate private members' bills in 10 or 15 years.
Again, I'm not sure what the mischief is. We've been told by my esteemed colleague Senator Martin that it's hard to explain to the House of Commons why not all of their bills get — you didn't put it that way. I'm exaggerating, but you see the point I'm trying to make. In fact, more of their bills get passed faster than we would ever be able to dream of having in terms of comparable treatment on the other side. So I think there really is no mischief there for us to be addressing.
As far as internal Senate dynamics, to repeat, I think we're creating a nightmare here where the majority will be able to squelch anything and everything that it wishes to, and I don't think we should be going there.
Senator Frum: I'd like to say in response to Senator Fraser that the alternative is what we have now, which is while I understand the concern you have about the majority overreaching and overusing its powers, we see there are built-in safeguards with the three hours and the 15 days, and if a vote is called, as opposed to now, you can have a minority of one person squelch a bill and kill a bill.
Senator Fraser: We fixed the rules.
Senator Frum: You could still have the minority pass it from one to another, and the effect of it is to kill a bill. You have that situation now. It is true that what you're facing then is allowing the majority to eventually have its way with the bill. That's true. But that is to rectify a situation now, which strikes me as more unfair than that, to allow a very tiny minority, and indeed sometimes out of the courtesy and protocol we use in the Senate, to in fact have one person stop a bill. That is, as Senator Smith said, not right. That's actually much less democratic than allowing the majority to eventually, with due process, have its say.
Senator McCoy: I disagree that one person can hold it up. The Senate can move around that person, and it's a very easy procedure. So any myth that somebody has been perpetrating that one person can somehow hoist a debate should be taken off the table.
It seems to me the root of what everybody is talking about here is the difficulty of one or the other of the caucuses — the majority caucus usually — controlling the full, free and wide-ranging participation in debate by individual senators. So we come back to the essence of most conundrums in our democratic institutions. We are here for the purpose of bringing our independent views or, shall we say, our carefully considered and beholden to no one faction views to bear upon various proposals that are placed for consideration in front of us.
Over the past five decades or more, we have seen various attempts, various successful moves, in fact, to limit the ability of individual senators and members of the House of Commons to fully exercise that responsibility, to the point where the House of Commons has totally abdicated its responsibility to act as a counterbalance to the executive, that is to say the government, which is the cabinet and the cabinet only, and then the civil service.
In the Senate, despite our belief that we are independent, I will say I think we're more independent than the House of Commons, but I do not think we are truly independent. When you watch one of the most dramatic moments in our history, which was the debate on expenses last fall, and if you took the time to read the 84 pages of RCMP affidavit, carefully going through the testimony not only in the Senate but of the individuals involved and all his interviews, and all the emails of both the Prime Minister's Office and the senators and staff, one realized that the chief of staff and his associates were telling senators what to do. It was also clear that senators were doing what they were told. That, I think, is a mischief.
If we do anything with our rules that gives the central authorities, whether it's the PMO or the OLO or the leader's office of the other caucus in the House of Commons, any more levers to restrict the ability of senators to act as decently as they know how, as honourably as they know how, then we do Canadians a disservice. I think this has the makings of just that kind of a move.
The example that you raised, Senator White, was about a private member's bill from the House of Commons, which was Bill C-377, an anti-union bill, and the amount of debate it got. With respect, before it came here from the House of Commons, it had been publicly endorsed by the Prime Minister. So it was widely understood in at least the popular press, if I may put it that way, that it was being endorsed and pushed forward by the government. It was for that reason that it was proceeded with as energetically as it was.
But it was also one of the Senate's finest hours to see a number of senators in and around the chamber, regardless of what caucus they belonged to, come to the floor with opinions and suggestions as to how to improve that piece of proposed legislation.
This happens without the need for any more rules. If you say that this is going to encourage more debate, I sincerely doubt it. There's already a 15-day limit on motions and inquiries, and you can't tell me that, just because of that, there's more debate on every one of those items. The justification is not here. It's in my mind; I think we're skirting the real issue, which is, in effect, giving either the PMO or the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons more power over us than is warranted.
Senator Frum: I'm just going to rise to the bait here and say this idea that the Senate has only been partisan in the last five decades is clearly not true. We do have one of the leading Senate historians in the world sitting here, so I really should defer to him.
I think you said that this is a new phenomenon, but I will remind you that in the first Government of Canada, 5 of the 13 ministers were senators, and senators have been in the cabinet all throughout Canadian history.
An Hon. Senator: Not now, though.
Senator Frum: That's the new thing. That's what's new, actually. This is a brand new thing.
The fact is that this idea that we are here to be 105 independent members is not historically accurate, and it's not even practically purposeful. I just want to comment on that. I don't agree or support this idea that we are somehow failing in our roles if we don't, each of us, act completely and totally independently of each other. I think that would be chaotic, and I just had to respond to that.
Senator Cools: Who's answering that? Was it a question?
The Chair: I think Senator Frum was making a statement, as many people have today, an opinion. That's okay.
Do you have a comment, Senator Cools?
Senator Cools: Yes, a couple.
If this committee really wanted to study an issue that I think would be very helpful to the situation of the Senate today, in modernity, the committee would study the meaning of the words "government in the Senate." I've said before — and the powers that be just ignore it — that the powers that belong to the government in the Senate are derived from the presence of members of the government in the Senate. This has been the standard of responsible government for the last 200 years, that is, that the business in the two houses is led by members of the ministry.
I raise that again because it would be a really useful study to bring forward the precedence and the history and the constitutional law around it. I give you an example here. This is from the notes prepared by the Subcommittee on Broadcasting on its first report. It says very clearly:
One of the issues that attracted the subcommittee's attention was the procedure for dealing with business not proposed by the Government, which our Rules call "Other Business." These debates sometimes seem to go on interminably.
The complaint of this paper is that private members' business can be or may be interminable. Therefore, the objective of this whole thing is to make a correction in private members' activities.
I want to talk about the phenomenon of independence. The real term "independence" doesn't have its origin in partisanship. In other words, people were members of parties for centuries and were still independent. The term "independent" is a relationship to executive authority. All of those who are not ministers were the independents. Even in the U.K., they do not use the term "independent" to describe people like myself. It is only recently in constitutional history that the term "independents" has been applied to people who are not committed to a particular party. Every single member is supposed to be an independent. The only members who cannot claim independence are those who are members of Her Majesty's ministry. So we should begin to understand the language of this place.
The Chair: Senator Cools, I don't know that you should be pointing fingers at other senators.
Senator Cools: I didn't mean to point a finger. We should make an effort to understand the history and the lexicon of this place. Actual independence has nothing to do with partisanship. Independence has the ability of that power vested in the individual by Her Majesty's commission, under the Great Seal, to bring forth, and to act on behalf of, the public good. That's what independence is, and that is greatly inhibited in this place. I don't think that is a surprise to anybody else. All we have to do is count the large number of times that we're using closure and these harsh measures.
I understand the good intentions that Senator Nolin is moving with. I understand the great concern, but the real thing is that I have not been able to be convinced that there's a mischief in the business of private members. The government already is overpowered in the institution, and it's taking a lot for granted when it doesn't even have a single minister in the house.
I do not know why the members of this committee do not invite the Prime Minister to appoint a minister from the Senate. Senator Frum has just said that 5 of 13 ministers in Macdonald's cabinet were senators. I don't see why this government shouldn't spare one or two. I think that would alleviate a lot of the problems.
The fact of the matter is that we're taking away power from those who have remarkably little and giving it to those who have more, and that is my concern. I see a lot of members in this place who are already weighted by these problems. I hope that makes some sense.
Senator D. Smith: What we might have to do, when we come back in the fall, is have a really serious discussion about the exact mandate of this committee of three. Maybe we might have to bump it up to five. Maybe I'll go on it; I don't know.
I think we need to have at least a consensus on what the mandate of the committee is, what it, over the years, has done to update where it felt that the language wasn't clear and that most people couldn't understand it or where situations had warranted certain changes.
We seem to be in a bit of a quagmire here. I think it's always good for us to try to work towards consensus. To get consensus, everybody has to give a bit. You get a bit, but you have to give a bit, too.
Do I think the other place is perfect? No. I've been fortunate to sit in both places, and, quite frankly, I'd feel better about the other place if it wasn't quite so whipped. I'd love to see parliaments where you have more free votes and where a number of things that you can really call Parliament go down. Michael Chong has at least stirred up a worthwhile debate. That isn't to say that I agree with every single thing he's recommending, but there are some things that he is recommending that I think improve democracy.
I think we need to keep in mind our fundamental goals. Improving democracy is one and trying to make it work and make parliaments work. We can never forget the fact that the people down the hall do have a mandate that we don't quite have. This is a reality that some of us may from time to time be in a bit of denial about, but it's a reality.
So I don't think we've achieved much here this morning other than maybe come to a consensus that maybe we really have to revisit exactly what the committee is doing, what its goals should be and what it should be zeroing in and focusing on because I think we're in a bit of swamp this morning.
I do like the tradition that this committee has had in most things we've studied over the years that at the end of the day there was give and take and we usually came up with a consensus. I'm not feeling the consensus vibe here this morning. I'm just thinking of what we need to do is try and go down that road.
I would very much invite the views of Senator Joyal. He and I were in the same place at the same time, too.
Senator Unger: A while ago Senator Cools said that we have an obligation to act in the public good. We can spend years debating and discussing the meaning of any particular word or phrase going back in history forever. It seems to me that these private members' bills have been put forward by members of the other house. Primarily I think that's what we're talking about. They deserve to be processed in a timely manner and I think the process as set forward by our committee has come up with something that compares with what other senates are doing. I see no harm whatsoever in trying it.
And yes, Senator Cools, I know you're getting ready to respond.
Senator Cools: No, you don't.
Senator Unger: If we can't ever make any change to see what it feels like, surely to goodness if it was a change that was so horrible no one could live with we could sit in Rules or people would be sitting in Rules and coming up with a way to amend it, to repeal it, to do whatever with it, but it surely wouldn't hurt to try something.
Thank you.
Senator Frum: I entirely agree with Senator Unger and I would like to propose that in fact we deal with this today on the grounds that this is, as I'm aware, the third meeting on this subject. This proposal came forward with a bipartisan subcommittee, so in that respect the proposal was put forward on a consensus basis. I think it is very, very clear. In a way, this is a microcosm of the precise problem we're describing. We could punt the football and worry about it after we all come back from our summer breaks, or maybe even after our Christmas break, or the year after the election, as Senator Manning says. We could talk about this and debate this for a long time because I'm pretty sure that we're all going to cling to the views that we hold today and no amount of mountains of evidence about what other jurisdictions do will change our opinions.
In order to deal with this proposal, I think we have to just confront it. I don't see the makings of a compromise. I think, as Senator Unger said and as Senator Nolin has said, let's try it. If it proves to be deeply flawed, this committee can review it, revisit it. Maybe that's something that we could even consider as a consensus point — to review it in a certain amount of time. We can postpone and postpone and postpone, treat it like a private member's bill, but I think we should take some action and move ahead.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Joyal: I would like to offer three comments. The first one is that I heard Senator Cools in relation to the definition of the concept of independence in the Senate.
I would like to mention that I like the word that they use in the British House of Lords. They don't use the word "independent" to qualify lords who are not members of one of the two recognized parties. They call them "cross- benchers," and it means that on some issues they cross to one side and on some issues they cross to another side. In other words, they are not committed to vote with one side or the other, which I think has an implication of the follow- up that certainly would need to be reflected upon. I just wanted to offer that point.
The other one is in relation to Senator Frum's comments, and in relation to Senator McCoy, about the might of the government or the use of the might of the government side on the Senate. I would like humbly to offer that this is a temptation that any government will want to use. This government sometimes uses it and the previous government has used it also. In fact — and I will say this with absolutely no rancour or bad feeling — I was the object of the use of that might at least on two very important bills.
The first one was the extradition bill in relation to the death penalty, which is a very serious issue. I introduced an amendment to this bill, with the support of other senators, to prevent Canada from extraditing Canadian citizens to a foreign country where they could be subject to the death penalty if found guilty of a crime. I thought it was contrary to the Charter and a former decision of the Supreme Court, so I introduced that bill, which would normally call for a free vote because it was a moral issue. The death penalty has always been a free vote. I have gone through three votes in my career in Parliament on the death penalty and they were always free votes.
On that issue, the government of the day decided that it was no longer a free vote or a conscience vote; it would be a government whipped vote. I was opposed to that for the very reasons that I mentioned, and the government's might was used and the amendment was defeated. It was defeated in the Senate, but the Supreme Court, in its decision, because it happens that the Supreme Court was seized with the issue some two years later, finally came on the side of the interpretation of the Charter.
There was another example, the youth criminal justice bill, which I won't go into at length. The Minister of Justice of the time, not to name her, came to the justice committee and said she didn't want any amendments to that bill. Some senators on our side were concerned about some amendments, and one amendment passed on the bill and the government used its might to prevent it.
In all fairness, any government that is in a position to strongly hold the position will use its might at the point in time and, as I say, this government has used it and the previous government has used it also.
How do we deal with that in the Senate? That's for any senator to think about. Any one of us can find himself or herself in that position in relation to a bill, so I think a very important issue to reflect upon is how we structure our work to take care of that.
My colleague, Senator Nolin, could tell some stories from his career about introducing amendments sometimes against the will of his party. That doesn't mean that the senator breaks away from his party allegiance; it's just that the senator lives up to the commitment to his strongly held values and the Senate floor is the opportunity to do that.
My third comment is in relation to this morning's discussion. We could revisit the substance of the proposal on the basis of what we can learn from the lords — from the other parliament that has been the object of studies — and see if there's not a way of improving it, and come back to you. That's a fair exercise of intelligence, to hear the views of senators who have reservations, and I think they have been well expressed this morning.
Maybe the subcommittee could try again to do its best and see if we can't come forward with something that would take into account some of the points raised this morning. That's what I could offer as volunteer work.
Again, as I say "the best is the enemy of good." I know that we cannot solve the square, but we might be able to revisit this and see if there are not alternatives to meet an objective of making the house come to vote on some issues. We should take into account the preoccupations that have been expressed, and I think some of the arguments are certainly grounds to be reviewed.
That's what I can offer, as much as I am concerned, Mr. Chair.
Senator McCoy: I want to be on the record that I agree with you, Senator Frum, to the extent of your comments. I'm saying that I agree it has always been the tradition that there have been senators who have been members of particular caucuses, and that it would be chaotic if we did not have that kind of organizing principle in either the House of Commons or the Senate.
Senator Frum: I want to be on the record, too.
Senator McCoy: And that is not the point I'm making. There is a distinction between the executive and the legislative branches. The executive is the role — the easiest way for me to remember it is that it's the role the Queen plays, with the executive with her adviser being the cabinet, the Privy Council, and then all of the civil service. That's the executive, and that is different from the legislators, which are the members of Parliament or the senators.
So it's independence from the executive, not independence from the party. Partisanship goes with the territory — I agree with you 100 per cent — and so if we could grasp that piece more broadly . . . .
I was listening to the debates on the motions that Senator Nolin brought forward. Senator Wallace was speaking to the modernization of the Senate, and he was quoting Sir John A. Macdonald in 1866 probably, or 1865, when they were considering Confederation and what shape our institutions would take. They were talking about the Senate, which is a deal maker. In particular, he said — I quoted the pieces where Macdonald said there is no point in having a Senate that merely echoes the House of Commons, but he said the Senate must never stand against —
Senator Joyal: The popular elected house.
Senator McCoy: No, he didn't say that. If I heard the quote right, he said "stand against the people."
Senator Nolin: The "well-understood will of the people." There's a qualifier there.
Senator McCoy: "The well-understood will." All right. The assumption was that it meant that the Senate should not stand against the government.
Senator Cools: That is what it now means.
Senator McCoy: But the government is not the people. In fact, very often the situation is that the government has no well-understood mandate on a particular point from the people. So at those stages, it's perfectly legitimate to organize things in such a way that the government asks for a mandate from the people on a particular point, either by calling an election, which is the typical way, or in other ways.
You tease these things apart, and you begin to recognize there is an honourable role for legislators, including senators, in being loyal members of a party and still not being puppets to the executive, which is to say the cabinet function.
That was a long-winded way of saying "I agree with you," but I wanted to go on and encourage people to keep that very abbreviated thought in their mind: Independence from the executive but not from the party.
Senator Frum: I want to respond to Senator Joyal's offer to continue to study this longer. I would cling to my proposal, which is that we deal with this today, because there is a fundamental principle that we're debating; namely, should we accelerate from the current process the ability to vote on private members' bills? That's the debate we're having. There are sidebar interesting debates, but the focus of what we are here to talk about today is whether the proposal by the subcommittee is reasonable and fair when it comes to putting private members' bills to a vote after three hours and/or 15 sitting days.
I think it is reasonable.
With regard the idea that you would study it to come up with a more fair version of that, I think we're clashing on the fundamental principle of the question. We haven't had a conversation about whether it should be 15 days or three hours; that's not what we're debating. We're debating the concept of having a mechanism to bring something forward to a vote.
That is where we are having the breakdown of debate, and I don't see that being resolved with more study. That is a fundamental principle you are either in favour of or not. I do not know how we will bridge that gap; I think we will have to just move forward and vote on it.
Senator D. Smith: The gist of what Senator Joyal has been saying is to study this a bit more and see if we can reach consensus. For many years, the culture of the Rules Committee, which recommends the rules by which the chamber operates — assuming they adopt what we recommend — is that we really don't adopt stuff unless we have consensus on both sides — not unanimity, but a consensus. I don't think we have one today. Do you think we should abandon that culture, or should we keep working at it and try a little harder?
Senator Frum: If I may sound like a brash newcomer after five years here, I can say there is a lot about the culture of the Senate that the people don't like. The culture of the Senate has not changed very much in almost 150 years, and people don't like our culture. I think people would be very upset to hear that we think it's okay, after a bill has passed the House of Commons, that we think one, two or three senators could effectively kill that bill. I don't think that's how the people think Canada should function.
If there was a consensus in the chamber, that's one thing, but the idea of a few self-empowered individuals getting in the way of the will of the house? It is not an attractive thing for the people.
So while I appreciate there is a culture here, I would say that culture is very slow moving, and it's hard for outsiders to embrace our culture. Sometimes you have to just take the plunge and try things. I stand by the argument being made that this will actually promote greater debate. If you set deadlines — I always used to tell myself as a journalist that deadlines are your friends; it's always good to have parameters.
Senator D. Smith: I have been open-minded about this.
Senator Frum: You've been wonderfully open-minded; I have heard you. I'm surprised you're advocating to delay it, because everything I've heard you say makes me think you support it.
Senator D. Smith: Because I just feel more comfortable when we historically have always been able to reach consensus with a little bit of change here and there.
Senator Frum: I'll ask you a question: Based on what you've heard today and how strongly people feel, one way or another, do you think that's actually possible, or is that just a Senate delay tactic?
Senator D. Smith: Maybe I'm dreaming, and hope springs eternal, but I would have liked to at least give it a go; not indefinitely, not for time and eternity, but maybe a couple more months.
Senator Frum: My question would be, to those people here who don't like it — because you asked Senator Jaffer for concrete solutions right now, today, here.
Senator D. Smith: What she thought is fair. I think it's good for people to tell us what they do think is fair, because sooner or later we all might hear one that we can reach an agreement on.
Senator Frum: But this is our third meeting on this.
Senator Cools: That's nothing.
Senator Frum: That's the culture of the Senate.
Senator Fraser: I support Senator Smith's reminder of the long tradition here of working to achieve consensus. Yes, it can take time. That's one of things we're here for. That's what the Constitution set us up to do: provide sober second thought on bills, including bills that come from the House of Commons, not all of which are perfect when they arrive here.
I don't think consensus is beyond the wit of man to achieve. It won't be easy; for sure it will not be easy, because there are strongly held opinions on both sides of this issue.
But there is one point that I think is pertinent here. A number of senators have referred to the government exerting its will; and, as Senator Joyal pointed out, governments do. I've been here when a Liberal government exerted its will, and we've all seen the Conservative government exert its will here. They do that. But the dynamic of the Senate is that for prolonged periods of time, the majority in this place can be composed of members of the opposition. That's one reason why, in my view, it is so important to have consensus about our rules, because those situations can create very tense and difficult times indeed.
I think it is absolutely essential that the basic structure with which we operate be one that both sides agree is, at the very least, livable and, ideally, desirable because we're all going to be here, some of us longer than others, for some time yet. We have to bear in mind that the rules we're talking about are going to apply not only to the present dynamic, the present situation where the government has a majority, but when times change.
Senator McCoy: When the government is in a minority in the Senate.
Senator Fraser: That's why we need consensus, and it's worth working to achieve consensus even if it takes a while, in my view.
Senator Cools: It is a maxim of human behaviour and human cooperation that, in moving ahead in any situation, there are some who are not fully convinced, or unconvinced or cautious. It is a part of human cooperation and the proper functioning of human organizations that the process has slowed down to accommodate those who have doubts. That has gone on in this place for a very long time. I have served in this place for quite some time, in situations when the government is in a minority in the house, and it's a different situation from when the government has a majority. I just wanted to say that.
What I want to be clear about is that the history of this place and the history of rule changes has always been that rule changes should not be foisted or forced by some upon the others. There are huge traditions here that are long forgotten because there have been such changes in membership, but one of those rule change notions has always been that if some feel strongly about doing something, a debate begins in the Senate to gather the house, to gather the opinion of the senators in the house. At the conclusion of all that, then the committee may be sent a reference.
The rule on which this place, this committee, is now relying is a rule that is not supposed to be used as this is being used. The rule that exists which allows the committee, on its own initiative, to bring forth proposals is supposed to be used in conjunction with Committee of the Whole in the Senate, but it's not supposed to be used in a ruthless or hard way, in other words, not to provoke unnecessary differences. I feel no hostility to exploring better ways to do things. I'm very supportive of all that. But I do feel a commitment to proceed in a way that honours debate and parliamentarianism, about which I have my own view.
It is crystal clear that there are many here who are hesitating for one reason or the other; and in the interests of good service and good human relations, I think it would be better if we were to heed that.
We just received in our hands several documents that need some time to digest and understand, and to check the references and precedence. Rule changes have never been something that one rushes into, and you know that.
Senator Nolin, I have a good memory of a time, as Senator Joyal has. I will not say which government it was, but we went through a period of time where there was a particular minister of a committee that we served on. We saw a period of time for about a year and a half when that minister was not sure he could even get his bills through that committee.
Senator Joyal may have forgotten this, but I remember having a conversation with a very highly placed fellow over at Justice, and this had become the preoccupation of the Justice Department, how they were going to break that bottleneck.
It's a long story, but I'm saying to you that there are ways that we slow down, pause and take a measure of what is really happening. This is not a question that some are convinced or some are unconvinced; this is a question of how we function as an organization or as a committee.
Senator Martin: Having listened to the discussion here today, I'm in agreement in part with Senator Frum in terms of the opportunity we have today to perhaps look at taking this to the chamber. Under the current rules, we will be having quite a debate in the chamber as well, rather than keeping it among the committee members. And we had a subcommittee with members of both the government and the opposition sitting together and crafting something for us to consider. We've suggested amendments which they then took back and brought back to us, the reports that were prepared for us that I read last night, before today.
Yes, it does require further reflection, but based on that report, based on the discussions we've had, and based on today, I think there is a consensus in this room that our colleagues will be very interested in this topic in that we have already put quite a bit of time and energy into this very important proposed rule change. Under the current rules, we cannot force anything upon our colleagues. It will eventually be brought to a question, but it could be adjourned; it could be adjourned by several members, and we will continue to debate this. I think it does warrant that kind of attention.
I would support Senator Frum's suggestion that we make a decision today.
The Chair: Senator Frum, I apologized twice. I know you've circled around it. Are you moving the second proposal, that it be reported to the Senate?
Senator Frum: Yes, chair. I'd like to move that motion and proceed with this.
Senator Cools: She has to make the motion.
The Chair: The motion is that the committee report to the Senate the following recommendations — do you want me to read this through? I think everyone has a copy of this. We can recirculate it if you wish.
Senator Cools: Nothing is before the house yet. Nothing is before the committee yet. Who presented it to the committee?
Senator Nolin: Me.
Senator Cools: You did. Why is somebody else moving what your presentation is?
Senator Nolin: She's moving the adoption of that.
Senator D. Smith: We only got the reports yesterday.
The Chair: She's moving the adoption of the report.
Senator Cools: But this is not in the form of a report; I'm sorry. What it says here is "debate, draft, 2001." This is not a report from a committee or anybody.
Senator Nolin: It was produced first and I amended it at the meeting held on the date next to it. It came in two versions. There was the first version and then, influenced by the proposal by Senator Fraser, I went back to the subcommittee and we amended the report. What you have in front of you is an amended report.
Senator Cools: It may very well be, but it doesn't say it's a report of the committee. Maybe somebody should do that.
The Chair: Senator Cools, as noted, the proceedings of the committee are intended to be much more relaxed than in the chamber.
Senator Cools: I tend to differentiate between "relaxation" and "slipshod."
The Chair: I'm not suggesting anybody is being slipshod, but we had a discussion and a number of changes were made. But the original report was brought forward by Senator Nolin as chair of the subcommittee.
Senator Cools: I'm aware of that and I remember seeing that report, but what we now have before us does not say that it is a report as amended or revised. So we have to make that point. What is before us is an untitled thing.
The Chair: We have a motion before us. If we wish, we can debate that motion. Is that what you'd like to do, Senator Cools?
Senator Cools: It's not what I would like to do. I'm saying this has to be formatted and moved. The sooner somebody does that, the better off we all will be. Could we also know when this was adopted in the subcommittee?
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Frum that the committee report to the Senate with the following recommendations. If you wish, I can read the second proposal.
Senator Cools: No. I thought what you had said to me was that somebody here was going to move to report the adoption of a report from the subcommittee. This does not say that. It doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Senator Nolin: It's not because it doesn't say that; it's not that. That's why I explained to you there was first a properly formatted report from the subcommittee.
Senator Cools: I'm sympathetic to that.
Senator Nolin: We heard and we were convinced by the recommendation of Senator Fraser. The subcommittee then adopted an amendment to the first report. That's what you have in front of you.
Senator Cools: Is this the amendment or the whole new document?
Senator Nolin: It's a reviewed document of the first report.
Senator Cools: Was it voted on in the subcommittee?
Senator Nolin: That's why the chair spoke about relaxed rules in a subcommittee. What you have in front of you is the final version of our first report.
Senator Cools: So it's your first report.
Senator Nolin: Senator Frum is moving the adoption of that reviewed version.
Senator Cools: Somebody. It's the report of the committee. So what you have to do is to move — you're laughing at this. Obviously it amuses you.
Senator Nolin: No, no she is not.
Senator Frum: No. I'm referring to the chair. I think the chair was fully in command of the proceedings and he is about to do this.
Senator Cools: He's not in command of my head, though.
Senator Frum: That's true.
The Chair: Senator Frum has moved that the committee report to the Senate with the following recommendations, and those recommendations would be that the Rules of the Senate be amended by — and you have a copy in front of you.
Senator Cools: I prefer Senator Frum make any such motion. You can only repeat her motion. You cannot make it for her. I would like to hear Senator Frum.
The Chair: Senator Cools, thank you.
Senator Frum?
Senator Frum: It is with great pleasure that I would like to move this motion that we adopt this report as amended, dated May 30, 2014.
Senator Cools: I have not got the copy of any report.
The Chair: On debate.
Senator Cools: On a point of order, I have not got before me a copy of the report as dated in accordance with what Senator Frum has said.
Senator Nolin: Senator Cools, if you look at the first line, you see a series of eight digits at the end, first line. That's the date, "20140530." That's May 30.
Senator Cools: Okay. That's what those numbers are, the date?
Senator Nolin: Yes.
Senator Cools: Okay. But it doesn't say that it is a report from the committee.
Senator Nolin: That's why I explained to you it's the amended version of our first report.
Senator Cools: All that somebody has to do is to certify that and put the new title on it. The report isn't what I'm presented. It's not a challenge.
The Chair: Senator Frum has moved the adoption of the report.
On debate? Nothing? Let's call for a vote.
Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion, report to the Senate with the following recommendations?
Senator Cools: You didn't call for debate.
The Chair: I did, Senator Cools.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: Yea.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Cools?
Senator Cools: Nay.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Doyle?
Senator Doyle: Yea.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: Yea.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: Nay.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Frum?
Senator Frum: Yea.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Nay.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.?
Senator Joyal: No.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yea.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yea.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator McCoy?
Senator McCoy: No.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator McIntyre?
Senator McIntyre: Yea.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Nolin?
Senator Nolin: Yea.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Smith, P.C.?
Senator D. Smith: No.
Mr. Heyde: The Honourable Senator Unger?
Senator Unger: Yea.
Mr. Heyde: Yeas, 9; nays, 6; abstentions, nil.
The Chair: I'm pleased to announce there's adoption of the report and it will be reported to the Senate.
Is there any further business? Seeing none, the committee is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)