Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee on
Scrutiny of Regulations

Issue 1 - Evidence, December 2, 1999

The Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 9:10 a.m. to organize the activities of the committee.

[Translation]

Ms J.A. Joseph, Joint Clerk of the Committee: As Joint Senate Clerk, it is my duty to preside over the election of the Joint Chair.

[English]

I am ready to accept nominations.

Senator Finestone: I nominate Senator Hervieux-Payette.

Ms Joseph: Are there any further nominations?

There being none, I declare Senator Hervieux-Payette the duly elected joint chair from the Senate.

Ms Suzanne Baldwin (Joint Clerk of the Committee): It is my duty to preside over the election of the joint chair from the House of Commons.

I am prepared to accept nominations.

Mr. Epp: I nominate Mr. Gurmant Grewal.

The Joint Clerk (Ms Baldwin): Are there any further nominations?

There being none, I declare Mr. Grewal the duly elected joint chair from the House of Commons.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Thank you. Let us proceed with the election of vice-chair.

Mr. Murray: I nominate Mr. Wappel to be vice-chair of the committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Are there any other nominations?

There being none, Mr. Tom Wappel is duly elected vice-chair of the committee.

The next item on the agenda is with regard to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.

Mr. Lee: I move:

That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Joint Chairmen, the Vice-Chair, one member from the other party in the Senate, and one member from each of the two other opposition parties in the House of Commons and;

That the Subcommittee report its decisions to the Committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): The motion is carried.

The next item on the agenda concerns printing copies of our proceedings.

Mr. Epp: I move:

That the Committee print 400 copies of its Proceedings and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to adjust this number to meet demand.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): The motion is carried.

The next item is with regard to unrevised transcripts.

Mr. Lee: I move:

That the Committee's General Counsel review the unrevised transcripts of the proceedings of the Committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Is that agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): The motion is carried.

The next item is on quorum. May I have a motion concerning this item, please?

Mr. Assad: Mr. Chairman, I move:

That the quorum of the committee be fixed at four (4) members provided that both Houses are represented whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof so long as three (3) members are present, provided that both Houses are represented and at least one representative from the opposition is present; and

That the Committee concur in the First Report and that the Joint Chairmen so report to their respective House.

Mr. Epp: I have a question related to that. Do the chairmen of this committee have the right to vote?

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): We have voted in the past.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Yes.

Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): The motion is carried.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, with respect to quorum, may I ask the clerk if we have consistently required the presence of at least one representative from the opposition?

The Joint Clerk (Ms Joseph): I am told no.

Mr. Lee: What is the reason for proposing this at this time if it is not consistent with our past practice?

The Joint Clerk (Ms Joseph): It is used in standing Senate committees and was added accidentally. In the standing joint committees, it has not been the practice, I understand.

Mr. Lee: If this was an accidental inclusion, could we remove it, please?

The Joint Clerk (Ms Joseph): Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): There is no harm in it. It would help to keep the balance.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, there is usually harm in accidents. We are continuing on in this Parliament as we were in previous sessions. Therefore, I move that we delete the last phrase, which reads "and at least one representative from the opposition is present." That is consistent with past practice.

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): For generations it was like that. This is a non-partisan committee.

Mr. Epp: I have a question, then, with respect to the Senate. Is the opposition considered the minority party in that chamber? What happens if, some day, there are more than two parties represented there?

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): There are independent senators who sit in the Senate.

Mr. Epp: I would like to speak in favour of leaving this in. I am opposed to the motion that is being made because I think it is important when a meeting is being held that the members of the opposition be represented in the committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Even I cannot be here sometimes.

Mr. Epp: I would like to see it stay in. If there is not a quorum, the committee can still conduct business; it is just that the work that requires a quorum cannot be done.

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): If you decide to boycott, then we cannot work. Sometimes delaying the work of the committee could be a tactic.

Mr. Epp: Not in this committee, though.

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): The practice is that this committee is a non-partisan committee. We have had the practice for many years. When the Conservatives were in power, the rules were the same, and there were never any problems. This has been the tradition, and I feel we should continue with the tradition.

In this committee we do technical work. We are not rewriting the regulations; we are just examining them to see if they are in conformity with the law.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): There are four parties other than the governing party in the house. It is difficult for the opposition parties to collaborate.

If we leave it there, there is no harm. I do not see any downside to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Lebel: I do not agree completely with the comments of Senator Hervieux-Payette. Traditionally, this has been a non-partisan committee, but things have changed. We have noted this on several occasions, particularly when we reviewed the regulations respecting pharmaceutical patents.

I would go along with maintaining the status quo. Traditions are useful when they make sense, but lately, a different trend has emerged, namely that someone be designated as a member of the opposition. I agree with Mr. Epp that we should continue working as we did during the last session and I think we should put the matter to a vote.

[English]

Mr. Lee: This is not just a little tradition. These provisions were thought out carefully in years gone by. I would point out that one of the joint chairmen is a member of the opposition. By those same traditions, it would be virtually impossible to have a regular meeting around here without both the co-chairs participating in the exercise. I strongly differ with Mr. Lebel, with the Joint Chair Mr. Grewal and I would ask that we put the question now to a vote. Call the question, please.

Mr. Epp: I have a point of order. Where it states that at least one representative from the opposition be present, I am not clear if that applies only for the purpose of hearing evidence or whether it applies to the previous part, that is, whenever a vote, resolution or decision is taken. To which does it apply?

Mr. Bernier, General Counsel to the Committee: The problem exists because the sentence should not have been there in the first place. We have heard from the clerk that its inclusion was an accident.

Mr. Lee: Call the question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): All those who are in favour of it staying as it is, please raise your hands?

Mr. Epp: I think we have to deal with the motion; and the motion is to remove it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): It is moved by Mr. Lee that the last part of the sentence, the words "at least one representative from the opposition is present," be deleted.

Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Some Hon. Members: No.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Are we voting on the amended motion?

[English]

We just voted on the removal of the words. We will now vote on the motion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): After the deletion of this part, as I stated earlier, I will now need a new motion.

Mr. Lee: I would be happy to move that, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion as amended by Mr. Lee?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): The motion is carried.

The next item concerns committee staff.

Senator Moore: I move:

That the Committee confirm the agreement to have two Counsel from the Library of Parliament and two Administrative Assistants from the Senate assigned to the said Committee on a continuing basis and that their salaries and other expenses be paid by the Committee from funds provided for that purpose in the Committee's budget.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, counsel, is this wording consistent with our past traditions?

Mr. Bernier: It is, Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): I declare the motion carried.

The next item is authorization of expenditures.

Mr. Epp: I move:

That either Joint Chair or, in accordance with the direction of the Joint Chairmen, either Joint Clerk be authorized to approve payment of expenditures of the Committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Carried.

The next item relates to travelling and living expenses of witnesses. It has been brought to my attention that there are two motions on this subject. Why are there two motions on this?

The Joint Clerk (Ms Joseph): You will see on the agenda that there is an "or" in between the two motions. The practice in the past was to pay for two witnesses from any one organization. On the Senate side, it is now the practice to pay for only one witness from any one organization, and the chairmen are authorized to approve expenses for a second witness under special circumstances. There is an option there.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): There are two options. The first is for two witnesses to be paid, and the second is for one to be paid by the committee and one to be authorized by the chair.

Mr. Wappel: Which one is the usual past practice?

The Joint Clerk (Ms Joseph): Number 10 is the past practice.

Mr. Wappel: So if we vote for 11, we are breaking with tradition; is that correct?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): That is right.

Mr. Lee: May I ask if counsel has any views on either of these two options?

Mr. Bernier: None whatsoever.

Mr. Lee: Seeing none, I move:

That, at the discretion of the Joint Chairmen, the Committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment will take place upon application.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): So, we do not wish to break tradition. Let us vote on number 10, then.

Is it your please to adopt the motion?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): I declare the motion carried. We will delete motion 11 because motion 10 passes.

The next motion refers to electronic media of public meetings. Does anyone want to move this motion?

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): No. I do not think we have ever had electronic media cover this committee. CPAC has not manifested a lot of interest.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): There could be an opportunity to generate some interest.

Mr. Epp: I move:

That the Joint Chairmen be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by the electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings; and

That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.

Senator Finestone: I would like an explanation.

Mr. Epp: It has been agreed in the House of Commons that, wherever possible technically, committee meetings be televised. This is just in keeping with that for this committee. It is quite clear that it is at the discretion of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. That does not mean that every committee will be put on the air, but it could happen from time to time that there will be issues of great importance and interest to the public, and that it would be deemed beneficial to let the public see how the committee works. I am strongly in favour of this, bringing it in line with other committees in the House of Commons.

Mr. Bryden: I think this is one of the least-known but most important committees of Parliament, and it is unusual in the fact that it is a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. Anything we can do to get the public to know that this committee exists, and what work it does, would be beneficial, not just for the committee but for Parliament. I strongly endorse having the discretionary power of allowing cameras into the hearings here.

Mr. Lee: My comment is more along a point of order. I have no objection to televising the work of this committee at any point, but it would be inappropriate for us all to assume that the Rules of the Senate would govern this committee. A continuing difficulty for this committee is that we operate under Rules of the Senate and rules of the house.

Mr. Epp is not 100 per cent correct in saying that the house has agreed to a new television mandate. That may change later today in the house. However, as of now, the rules are not yet nailed down. This particular motion would not satisfy the requirements of the House of Commons. Therefore, the members of the house who are here might wish to decide that they did not wish to pay any attention to the rules of their house and subscribe to the Rules of the Senate.

I think we should stand the matter down and consider it at a later date, if we can put something together that would satisfy the rules of both houses. As far as I know -- and the clerk may wish to correct me if I am wrong -- the Rules of the Senate do not exclusively govern the procedures of this committee. As this is presently worded, it would not satisfy the provisions of the house rules. I am suggesting that we stand it down without prejudice to our ability to take it up at an appropriate point in time. I am in favour of televising as soon as we can arrange it, if anyone is interested.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Are there any other comments? Let me speak to it. In the house committee, when televising committees was under discussion, the inclination was towards televising. I have seen the new equipment that has been installed in some of the rooms. This committee is an important committee, and its work is as little known in the house as it is in the public. The discretion rests with the subcommittee whether it should be televised or not. Therefore, if this motion is passed and if this process is in place, it will not be harmful. It would be useful sometimes, when we have witnesses, for the public to know what they are saying on certain issues. I am in favour of the motion.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of members who have not been here before, this is a perfect example of this committee's proceedings. This should be routine and we are going on for 40 minutes.

I have a question about the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. What subcommittee is that? Is that a subcommittee of some Senate committee?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): It is a subcommittee of the joint committee.

Mr. Wappel: It is our subcommittee? What subcommittee on agenda and procedure do we have? Do you mean the steering committee?

Mr. Bernier: That is the formal name of it.

Mr. Wappel: I understand. I agree with Mr. Lee that this is not exclusively a question for the Senate. If someone is going to push that we move this motion, surely it should say "seek permission from the houses to permit coverage."

I move, in amendment:

That the words "the houses" be substituted for the words "the Senate."

Mr. Bryden: I second the motion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Members have heard the motion in amendment.

Is it your please to adopt the motion in amendment?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): The amendment carries.

Let us vote on the main motion now. All those in favour?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Carried.

We will now deal with future business of the committee. Should we decide this issue in the subcommittee? We will discuss the future business of the committee in the subcommittee first.

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Some voluntary work was done by some members of the committee -- mostly by Mr. Lee -- regarding the question of the RCMP regulations and the possibility of officers running for public office. Perhaps Mr. Lee could tell us about the outcome, which was more than satisfactory. In fact, the RCMP was more flexible than we ever anticipated. They were dramatically changing regulations that were never accepted by this committee.

Mr. Lee: The joint chair has described briefly what occurred. I am anticipating new regulations from the RCMP on the subject matters with which we had been dealing. May I ask counsel if we have had any information in writing from counsel for the RCMP as to the revision to those existing regulations?

Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Lee. We have draft regulations, which were sent to the joint chairmen by the commissioner some time in the summer. That file is ready to come back to the committee at its first meeting, whenever the committee decides it wants to hold it.

Mr. Lee: Clearly, counsel should be allowed to comment to the committee here and provide us with his views on the draft regulations. If we were so advised, then we could communicate back to the RCMP on that. It should return as soon as we can fit it into the agenda. That is my view.

Mr. Bernier: It will be on the agenda for the first meeting, Mr. Lee, whenever that is.

Mr. Lee: That is great.

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): The committee used to sit at 8:30 in the morning. It is easier to go through our business when we start earlier because we sometimes have a lengthy agenda. Do you mind if, for the next meeting, we begin at 8:30?

Mr. Wappel: No.

Senator Finestone: Is there a statutory time for this committee?

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Usually, it is every second Thursday at 8:30.

Mr. Wappel: The meetings usually last about an hour.

Senator Finestone: That takes us to after the House of Commons rises, does it not? If the RCMP regulations are in, I would be very interested to see them. If we could get it through before the Christmas break, it would be done in this millennium and not the next.

Mr. Lee: It will be done as soon as we can arrange it. Would the chairs anticipate that we would have a meeting prior to the break?

Mr. Wappel: We have two Thursdays before the break.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): Let us have it on the second Thursday. Is it almost ready?

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, as far as we are concerned, we could proceed on December 9.

Mr. Wappel: That is fine with me.

Senator Cochrane: I have a conflict with another meeting. I have the energy committee at 8:30 as well, Madam Chair, on Thursday mornings. Are we meeting every week?

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): Every second week.

Senator Cochrane: I have a conflict there and I wanted you to be aware of that.

Mr. Lee: Regarding "future business," colleagues will know that we have had a long-standing interest in revising the standing orders and the rules governing disallowance. There has been a fair bit of discussion on this over the last year. I suggest that we ask counsel to renew our paperwork on this, in preparation for a report to both houses. That report could be used as the basis for a legislative change. In discussion among members, there was a sense that a report from the committee to both houses could provide a basis for a response from the government and discussions with regard to a future change in legislation and not just the standing orders.

Therefore, subject to whatever the chairs' wish, I should like the committee to ask counsel to begin preparation of a report for that purpose.

Mr. Bernier: The only observation I would make, Mr. Lee, is that when the committee last considered this matter -- and it was a different committee -- it was the sense of that committee that the first step would be to have an informal meeting with the Minister of Justice to explore this subject. Following that, the committee would form a focused subcommittee to handle the issue. The committee would then decide whether to move to the formal report or how to proceed.

A letter with that invitation was drafted to the Minister of Justice, but it was not sent. It was signed by the senator but it is still in Mr. Grewal's office. The question becomes: Does this committee still wish to do that as an initial step, or do we go to a formal report?

Mr. Lee: I like the suggestion of counsel. He has kindly reminded us of what we had planned, and he is quite correct. The informal meetings and discussion prior to a formal report to the House of Commons would probably be good. I am happy to pursue it in that way.

Mr. Wappel: I want committee members to be mindful of the fact that we are listening to the parliamentary secretary to the house leader of the government. We have a parliamentary secretary to the house leader of the government who knows what this committee is about. I think we should strike while the iron is hot.

Senator Finestone: I do, too.

The Joint Chair (Senator Hervieux-Payette): What does that mean?

Senator Finestone: That means that Mr. Grewal should sign it and send it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): We sent it already.

Senator Finestone: No, you have not. You have not signed it.

Mr. Lee: I would suggest that counsel should begin the drafting. Matters will mature in due course. When the report is ready to be brought forward to the committee, he will be ready.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Grewal): As I understand it, we can use the combination of both strategies: namely, let counsel begin to prepare the report; and if there a meeting is arranged before or after with the justice minister, that would help.

Is it agreed?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The committee adjourned.