Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence for February 21, 2001
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 21, 2001
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met today, at 4:30 p.m., for its organization meeting.
[Translation]
Ms. Jill Anne Joseph, Committee Clerk: Honourable senators, I see that we have a quorum. As the clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of a chair.
[English]
Are there any motions?
Senator Moore: I move that the Honourable Senator Milne be elected chair of the committee.
Ms. Joseph: Any other nominations? Hearing none, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Moore that the Honourable Senator Milne be elected chair. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Joseph: Senator Milne, I invite you to take the chair.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I wish to thank you for the unanimous vote of approval. This is astounding. I will enjoy it while it lasts.
Before we begin, I wish to point out that our committee has a new clerk. We now have Ms Jill Anne Joseph with us. Ms Joseph has a long background with Senate committees, ranging over a period of 10 years. Many honourable senators know her because she has worked with the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, with the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, with the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and with the Subcommittee on Post-Secondary Education, a subcommittee of the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee. I am delighted to have you with us, Ms Joseph.
I also want to welcome back Nancy Holmes, whom we could not do without. She is a wonderful researcher, and we appreciate her.
Having said that, we will proceed to the election of the deputy chair. I will entertain a motion with respect to that.
Senator Andreychuk: I am pleased to nominate Senator Beaudoin as deputy chair of the committee.
The Chairman: It has been moved by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk that the Honourable Senator Beaudoin serve as deputy chair of this committee.
Are there further nominations? Hearing none, I move the nominations closed and welcome, again, Senator Beaudoin. It will be a pleasure to work with you.
For the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, it is moved by the 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.
Senator Cools: Maybe I have forgotten, but was not the third person Senator Moore?
The Chairman: Last time it was Senator Moore, and I intend to invite him to do it again.
Senator Cools: I was just clarifying that.
The Chairman: We are leaving it open in this fashion so that, if Senator Moore cannot be here, he can be easily replaced for that particular emergency situation.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
May I have a motion to print the committee's proceedings.
Senator Fraser: I so move:
That the Committee print its proceedings; and
That the Chair be authorized to set the number to meet demand.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Next is the authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when a quorum is not present.
Senator Andreychuk: I so move.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Andreychuk:
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.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
It is moved by Senator Buchanan:
That, pursuant to rule 104, the Chair be authorized to report expenses incurred by the Committee during the last session.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Cools:
That the Committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research officers to the Committee;
That the Chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the Committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the Committee; and
That the Chair, on behalf of the Committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
I turn now to the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Grafstein:
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 the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the Committee be conferred individually on the Chair, the Deputy Chair, and the Clerk of the Committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
I turn now to the subject of travel. Senator Joyal moves:
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; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the Committee is on "official business" for the purposes of paragraph (8)(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the Committee to be on "official business" if that member is: (a) attending a function, event or meeting related to the work of the Committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the Committee.
Senator Beaudoin: This is the first time I have seen such a motion.
Senator Cools: This motion has only arrived in the last year or so. I have sat on other committees where it has not been voted on, where it has been set aside.
Senator Fraser: It is my recollection that we voted on this at our last meeting.
The Chairman: The issue was raised last time. We did vote on it last time, passed it, and none of us travelled.
Senator Beaudoin: Is there a precedent for that?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Cools: Perhaps it could not be voted on, but, if it is required in the future, it be trotted out then and discussed. It seems to me that the list of so-called "automatic motions" is growing in the years that I have been here. I have some problems with this particular one.
The Chairman: This motion covers that situation where a senator misses a meeting because they are attending a conference on behalf of this committee, or speaking on behalf of this committee somewhere.
Senator Cools: That situation is so rare that it could be dealt with individually, then, I think.
Senator Beaudoin: Is it rare for all committees?
The Clerk: This motion is a standard motion in the organization of every committee. I believe it was the National Finance Committee that did not pass it.
Senator Cools: That is correct.
The Clerk: However, it would be rare for the steering committee to make a determination about official business on behalf of one of its members.
Senator Moore: Perhaps this could be referred to the steering committee.
Senator Fraser: I agree that use of such a motion is rare. However, I can envisage occasions when having to have recourse to it might in itself be a matter of much controversy and bog down the committee in endless days of arguing. I would rather just adopt it now so that the procedure is clear now when our heads are clear and when there is no controversy, rather than referring it to the subcommittee to make these decisions.
The Chairman: The problem is, I believe, that if a committee member came to ask for this provision in the future, it would then become personal because of the particular committee member who asked for it. This way, at least, it is generic.
Senator Beaudoin: There will be a discussion in the steering committee about it.
The Chairman: That is correct.
Senator Joyal: Does this mean that if I were to receive an invitation from a university law faculty to talk about the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which is a general invitation, I would be covered? In my mind, if it is in relation to a bill that is in front of us, or a subject matter, then it is part of the ongoing work of the specific mandate of the committee. I see that as being totally in accord with the work of the committee. However, if it is just a general invitation to speak to a social club about the great work that I do at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, then I am more puzzled.
The Chairman: It says "necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the Committee."
Senator Andreychuk: Madam Chair, in the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, this point did arise. We did not have this generic rule. The point was that some committee member had travelled and then said, "I was doing it on behalf of the committee." We said that there has to be prior approval and that the provision must be used sparingly. It was not for generic things such as discussing the committee. That does not preclude a senator from sending a letter to the clerk concerning attendance by virtue of all these categories that I do not understand. It is then that senator's prerogative. It is only when this committee authorizes it that this motion clicks in. I presume you would only authorize it when it is a necessity.
The Chairman: It states specifically that the subcommittee be authorized to determine whether the member of the committee is on official business or not. It would have to be pre-authorization as far as I am concerned.
Senator Beaudoin: The problem Senator Joyal refers to is certainly not covered by this provision.
Senator Joyal: I would not like it to be covered, either.
Senator Pearson: I am trying to understand why we have this provision. Let us say that we send Senator Joyal to speak, have a discussion or consultation with a group. That would mean that, not only would he not be present at the committee meeting, he would not be present in the Senate.
Senator Cools: That would be classified as official business. It could be quite legitimate without having to refer to this committee.
Senator Andreychuk: I know such a measure has been used when there was a specific event involving foreign affairs. There had been some discussion about the committee attending an event because we felt it was within the purview of a study we were conducting. We then said it was too costly to send everyone but that we should be represented. Thus, we sent one person and paid the costs for that person attending. It was deemed to be official business of the committee.
Whereas it helps me when I am invited to speak, it is up to the individual Senator to determine whether it is official business of the Senate. At that point, one starts to approach attendance categories. The question is really whether someone is authorized to be a representative of this committee.
Senator Cools: There is nothing wrong with that. The problem with this motion is that it places power into three hands of the committee and not the total committee. That is where I have some problems with this motion.
I have no problem with the first part of the motion, where it says that says that the committee can designate people. Where I have a problem is that three people are being set aside to make determinations about whether another senator is on official business. For the most part, any senator who is invited in his or her capacity as a senator will be on official business within our proper definition.
The less we begin to bring that question into the purview of individual committees, the better. If we travel as a committee, or two or three of us travel, we are already on official business. I have a problem with that motion and I know other committees have problems with it. I believe last year was the first time this motion appeared. Many would now say it is routine, but it is quite new in the life of committees.
Senator Moore: Perhaps we should just amend the second part of the motion so that the committee be authorized.
Senator Cools: The committee can designate one or two or three people to go anywhere, on paper.
The Chairman: That is already within the power of this committee.
Senator Cools: My problem is that someone wants to slide the powers of this committee to two or three people and I do not think that is in order.
The Chairman: In our defence, I can say we have never abused those powers.
Senator Grafstein: At the end of the day, it is a question of money.
The Chairman: It is a question of money that comes out of this committee's budget, paying for senators to go.
Senator Grafstein: In the past, this motion has not been utilized.
Senator Cools: This motion has been utilized in the past -- not by this committee, but years ago they sent certain people on conferences.
Senator Grafstein: It is fair to say that if there are individual requests, as opposed to it being a full committee, it should be referred to the steering committee for a decision. If the person does not get the approval, he or she brings it to the full committee. That is a very simple thing.
The Foreign Affairs Committee has embarrassed me in the past. I have been invited to go overseas on official business by the OSC, not once but three times, and I have not been able to get the money out of my budget, the JIC budget or the Foreign Affairs Committee. The chairman said that he could get me the money. I told him that I did not want to go to him cap in hand; I wanted to know if there was a budget. As it turned out, I paid my own fare over on one occasion just to meet my commitments as a senator there.
Having said that, the way to deal with it is to have the funds there. A senator makes a written request. If the steering committee turns that senator down, the senator comes back to the committee for a decision by the entire committee. That is a fair and expeditious way of doing it.
Senator Fraser: I would agree.
Senator Beaudoin: I would agree with that. In the end, the committee has the power anyway.
The Chairman: That is right. All in favour of motion No. 9, on travel?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cools: On division.
The Chairman: Carried, on division.
Turning to the motion of travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses' 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.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Turning to the motion in regard to electronic media coverage of public meetings.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk:
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.
All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
With respect to the time slot for regular meetings, we will meet on Wednesday afternoons, when the Senate rises but not before 3:30 p.m., in room 257, East Block, and on Thursday mornings at 10:45 a.m., also in room 257, East Block.
Under "Other Business," I do have something to point out to honourable senators. In the last Parliament, we had asked for a study on sentencing. Of course, that study died when Parliament prorogued. However, our parliamentary research branch, nevertheless, has nicely gone ahead and done quite a bit of work on the subject.
We have two documents to hand out to everyone. Senators may take them home and read them, after which we will have a further discussion as to whether these documents are adequate, or, indeed, as to whether we want to carry on with the study. If we wish to continue with the study, we must seek permission from the Senate in the usual fashion.
Senator Grafstein: I have one question. Is there a breakdown in this report between penalties as they apply to young offenders in the criminal justice system? We do not have any of that here.
The Chairman: No.
Senator Grafstein: The reason I say that is that there is a looming fate in the other place in regard to the Young Offenders Act. We should be prepared for the onslaught of that legislation -- which does not seem to be going in exactly the right direction. That is just a first impression. There will be tremendous pressure by police authorities to move on it quickly once it gets over here. Any work we can do on young offenders in advance of that pending legislation might be helpful so that we can have that as a factual base to deal with the question.
The Chairman: That is a good suggestion. In the meantime, this was what was asked for, which was all offences that come before this committee. We have some reading material.
Senator Beaudoin: We had a mandate. Was it related to that?
The Chairman: We had a mandate from the previous Parliament. We no longer have a mandate; however, these documents are the result of that past mandate.
Senator Beaudoin: Is this research in regard to the Criminal Code?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: This one is a sentence structure.
The Chairman: We asked for a sentence structure.
Ms Nancy Holmes, Researcher, Library of Parliament: Honourable senators, we have put together a substantive paper for you, setting forth some history of the code, how the sentencing structure has come about and how it currently exists. The grid has been taken from Martin's Annual Criminal Code to give you a sense of structure of the code, where sentences are grouped by life, 14 years, et cetera. That grid may be useful for future work of the committee.
One of the things about which there was concern when this subject came up was in regard to private members' bills that were coming before the committee where sentences were being imposed and trying to get an understanding of where that fits within the current system.
Senator Andreychuk: To pick up on the point that Senator Grafstein spoke to, Criminal Code sentences apply, but the sentences are different with young offenders. Thus, what we would have is another column of what the possible sentences are for young offenders.
I do not think that is the debate on the other side. The debate on the other side is that young offenders do get severe, lengthy sentences on similar crimes to adults. The question is this: Is that a fact or is it a myth? There are those who believe that an individual who appears in young offender's court gets off easily. Others believe that young offenders are dealt with rather severely, in relation to what a first, second or third offender in certain categories of crime would receive in adult court.
Ms Holmes: This does not pertain to the young offender. I am sure that we will have a great deal more information for you when that proposed legislation does come before us.
Senator Fraser: As I was the senator who most desperately felt the need for this material, whatever we end up doing with it, even if we end up only keeping it for reference, I wish to express my profound gratitude for it. It will be very helpful to me.
The Chairman: I am very grateful to the Library of Parliament for supplying us with this material.
If there is no further business, I declare this meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned.