Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence for February 12, 2004
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 12, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 10:57 a.m. for an organization meeting, pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate.
[Translation]
Ms. Marcy Zlotnick, Clerk of the Committee: As Clerk of the committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair.
[English]
I am ready to receive a motion for the election of the chair.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: I move that Senator Furey do take the Chair.
[English]
Ms. Zlotnick: Are there any other nominations? If there are no other nominations, I will put the motion.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin that the Honourable Senator Furey do take the chair of the committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, colleagues, for your vote of confidence. It is very much appreciated. Welcome back, everyone. It looks like we will be here for what the media is telling us will be a short but very busy time.
Honourable senators, you should have before you a document entitled Proposed Agenda. It was circulated by the clerk and contains a list of motions. These motions need to be passed to enable the committee to function. They are fairly routine.
The first item on the agenda is the nomination of the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: I nominate our colleague and friend, Senator Beaudoin.
[English]
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Joyal and seconded by Senator Jaffer that Senator Beaudoin be elected deputy chair of the committee.
Are there any other nominations? The motion is carried.
I propose to proceed through the motions in the order that they are set out. I invite honourable senators to propose the various motions, beginning with Motion No. 3, Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. If it is okay with honourable senators, I will just go from one side to the other and mention names. If anyone has an objection, they can raise it.
It is moved by Honourable Senator Pearson that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair, and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultation, and that the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings. The motion is seconded by Senator Andreychuk. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin that the committee print its proceedings and that the chair be authorized to set the number to meet demand. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Joyal that, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Nolin that the committee adopt a draft first report prepared in accordance with rule 104. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Jaffer that the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research staff to the committee, that the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee and that the chair on behalf of the committee direct the research staff in the preparation of studies and analyses, summaries and draft reports. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Buchanan that pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee; and that pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act and guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of Senate, authority for certifying accounts for payment by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is moved by Honourable Senator Jaffer that the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate as required one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Senator Cools: Could we have a discussion on that?
The Chairman: Senator Cools, we had that discussion the last time. I appreciate what you will say, but I will ask the committee to move the motion.
Senator Cools: I do not doubt that, but I would like to have some discussion on how often this has happened. I would love to know who is going where on our behalf.
The Chairman: During the last session nothing happened. I indicated to the committee the last time when this discussion arose, Senator Cools, that if anyone were going I would inform the committee in advance. I will undertake to do so again if there is a problem.
Senator Cools: I have been around here a long time, Senator Smith. I have seen many things.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to determine whether any member of the committee is on official business for the purposes of paragraph 83(a) of the senators' attendance policy published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998, and consider any member of the committee to be on official business if that member is attending a function, event or meeting related to the work of the committee or making a presentation related to the work of the committee. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Senator Cools: Could we have a report on the operation of this?
The Chairman: We can do that; it is not a problem, Senator Cools. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Baker that pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization, and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Cools that the chair be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by 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. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I ask your indulgence for another five or ten minutes to proceed in camera to briefly discuss one or two items, but first I will explain in case anyone is wondering about last night.
We were to meet yesterday after the Senate rose, which is a normal procedure for Wednesdays. When there was a vote in the chamber last night, we were not sure if there would be numerous votes or how long the chamber would sit. Staff had already been sitting here waiting for almost three hours, so I decided, in consultation with some other senators, that we should try to do this today rather than last evening. I know that a number of senators had other plans for this morning, so I will make this as brief as possible.
There are two items I want to discuss in camera and we should deal them fairly quickly.
Senator Cools: I wonder why the Senate did not adjourn early yesterday, because our practice is to adjourn early on Wednesdays so that committees can meet? Do you know who made this decision and why?
The Chairman: I do not know, Senator Cools, but it is a good question. I sat in the chamber waiting for the adjournment, but there was a lot of debate on a number of different issues.
Senator Andreychuk: The point is that if we have proposed legislation and pressing business before the committee then that rule would apply. However, I think both leaderships thought that organizational meetings were not critical and that is why they decided that items before the house were more critical. I do not think we should let them get away with that too often.
Senator Cools: It does not truly matter, but the practice has been to leave the chamber early on Wednesdays, and we should adhere to that practice. I do not have a problem with this, but I do not like too many surprises.
The Chairman: I agree.
Senator Cools: Last evening's events were a surprise.
The Chairman: We were all surprised that things went as they did yesterday.
Senator Cools: I try to follow these things pretty carefully, and I appreciate that the chamber may have been waiting to receive bills from the other place, which it did. However, we continued for hours after those bills had been received. When I first inquired as to why the sitting of the house was being prolonged, I was told that we were waiting to receive the messages from the House of Commons in respect of old Bill C-34 and others. We did receive them and yet we continued to sit.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Cools. I appreciate your concern.
Honourable senators, before we go in camera could I have your wishes with respect to whether senators' staff members remain while we are in camera?
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, I would like us to treat in camera meetings as truly in camera and exclude strangers. I have attended in camera meetings where there were more staff than committee members. I think perhaps we should look at what ``in camera'' means. For years we have accommodated committee staff as record-keepers, but I have some objections to that practice.
Senator Nolin: I have respect for Senator Cools' comments. I think if a senator gives his confidence to someone to be part of the delivery of his or her duty, then senators should respect that decision. I do not have a problem with your staff being part of an in camera discussion. We have in camera discussions in our own offices. The principle is to provide the proper information to make an in camera discussion work. That is the intent. Staff members are part of the effectiveness of a worthy, in camera discussion.
Senator Buchanan: I agree with Senator Nolin. I do not agree with Senator Cools, and that is rare.
Senator Cools: It is only recently that these practices have begun.
Senator Buchanan: Not really. You can look back at true in camera meetings such as those first ministers' conferences in the Conference Centre. Those meetings were always in camera, and the Prime Minister always had two or three staff members and each premier had at least one. It was important that staff members attended.
Senator Beaudoin: I was there.
Senator Buchanan: ``In camera'' does not mean ``exclusion.'' Rather, it means that the group would agree to what ``in camera'' means.
Senator Cools: I do not want to prolong this discussion.
Senator Andreychuk: All of us have been around too long — we have histories. That practice is fine as long as staff members who stay are instructed by their senators about the confidentiality of the discussion. I was in a meeting where a senator and his staff obviously had no communication about the meaning of ``in camera'' and how that staff finds the senator.
Senator Cools: With all due respect, and I love you dearly Senator Buchanan, but your premises are really quite wrong. The principle of in camera in Parliament has to do with exclusion of strangers. Cabinet is an entirely different set of principles and is an entirely different matter. They are not related.
I would like to say to honourable senators that there is a rule of the Senate and of the House of Commons that strangers can be excluded at a moment's notice. I am simply trying to remind honourable senators of what I consider to be some of these principles. The phenomenon of in camera is not so much about confidentiality. The phenomenon of in camera — and maybe it is unfortunate that this new language has taken over in the last 40 years — is the exclusion of strangers. Try it one day in the chamber. Just stand up and say you spy a stranger and see what will happen.
It is not that important to me. It is just that I hear a lot of talk. Our staff are very good, to be quite frank, but I can tell you that I know a lot of what is going on around here just from the cabinet ministers' assistants who gather and drink and talk and dine at many different places. I just think it is good every now and again to bring forth these principles.
For example, when Senator Kenny has an in camera meeting, he even excludes the committee staff. I would not like it to be forgotten, but any senator at any given moment can claim that right. I would like to make the point before we forget totally.
The Chairman: What I will do, if it is okay with the committee, is any time we go in camera and there are people present, I will put the question to committee members to ascertain whether they want the staff to remain.
Senator Cools: It should be done every time, yes.
Senator Smith: We have spent more than enough time on this matter.
Honourable senators, I would defer to your discretion. You know the nature of the items you wish to raise. If the nature of those items is such so as not to stipulate that everyone needs to be excluded, fine. I have great confidence in your judgment. If the nature of the item you wish to raise falls into a category where it is very tight, then you should indicate that. Whatever you recommend, I will defer to your judgment.
For this morning, if it is okay with the committee, staff will remain.
Is it agreed that the committee continue in camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee continued in camera.