Proceedings of the Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 1 - Evidence of February 4, 2004
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 4, 2004
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:11 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, I have the honour to preside over the election of a chair. Are there any nominations for the position of chair to this committee?
Senator Di Nino: It is my pleasure and honour to nominate Senator Lorna Milne as the chair of the committee.
Mr. Armitage: Are there any other nominations?
There being no other nominations, is it agreed, honourable senators, that Senator Milne do take the chair?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: I thank you very much. For the most part, the committee is made up of the same people as before. I wish to thank them for their efforts before prorogation. I also wish to thank the committee staff, who have worked very hard to get things before us so quickly at this first meeting.
We will now proceed to the election of the deputy chair. Are there nominations?
Senator Di Nino: I will do the honours again, unless someone opposite would like to do so?
I nominate Senator Raynell Andreychuk as deputy chair.
The Chairman: Any further nominations?
I declare that Senator Andreychuk is once again the deputy chair.
Would someone care to move number 3 on our list?
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Grafstein 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.
Are we agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Fraser that the committee print its proceedings and that the chair be authorized to set the number to meet demand.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Fraser 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, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Number 6 on our agenda is the financial report. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool that the committee adopt the draft first report of our committee, which Senator Harb is in the process of receiving and which I believe everyone else has.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next item on our agenda relates to the research staff. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk 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; 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 agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Item number 8 on our agenda refers to the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. It is moved by Honourable Senator Hubley 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 of Canada 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 agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
It is moved by Honourable Senator Ringuette 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.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Designation of members travelling on committee business is the next item on our agenda. I can assure you we are not going to travel; nevertheless, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Harb 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 8(3)(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?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Downe 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: Carried.
Item number 12 on our agenda refers to electronic media coverage of public meetings. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Di Nino 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: Carried.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Murray that the time slot for regular meetings shall be Tuesdays, 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., in room 356-S of the Centre Block, and Wednesdays, 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., room 160-S of the Centre Block.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Under other business, honourable senators have a copy of an application for budget authorization. This will take to the end of this fiscal year, which ends at the end of March.
Mr. Armitage: That is correct.
The Chairman: The $3,600 is for meals only.
Senator Harb: I so move the budget.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The budget is carried, and we have carried our organizational processes.
Are there any questions?
Senator Grafstein: I may be wrong about this, but I thought it was customary in this committee for the whips of both sides to be ex officio members as opposed to members. I notice on the proposed agenda that there is a slot for ex officio members but that it is blank. Heretofore, I have noticed that we have always given sway to the leadership on both sides — that is, either the leader, the deputy leader or the whip — to attend; however, if I recall correctly, they were ex officio. I just ask you to review that and bring it up at the beginning of our next meeting, whatever the practice is.
Senator Murray: It is the leaders that are ex officio, or the deputy leader.
The Chairman: I understand that the deputy leaders are ex officio, but the whips have been made official at this time.
Senator Grafstein: I want to know what the previous practice was.
The Chairman: Senator Stratton was a full member of the committee last time, as was Senator Rompkey.
Senator Di Nino: I have a couple of questions. First, to save money on the length of the wire for the earphones just about took my ear off. Perhaps that could be brought to someone's attention and something done about it.
For my information, why are we meeting in two different places? Is it because of space allocation?
The Chairman: That is right. Our preference would be to meet in this room each time, but on Tuesday mornings the Aboriginal Peoples Committee meets here and they have first claim on this room.
Senator Di Nino: Is it not possible for us to meet upstairs both times, for convenience?
The Chairman: There was an unusual amount of interest in the proceedings of this committee during the last session, so we thought we would at least move down here for one meeting of the two so that we could accommodate everyone of the public who wish to be here, as well as the staff.
Senator Di Nino: Lastly, are the times that have been set, namely 9:30 to 11:30, the regular times? Last year, a number of times the meetings were set earlier. That does create some scheduling problems. Are we to try to stick to the 9:30 time?
The Chairman: We will try to stick to those, but if there is a rush of government legislation before this committee, we may have to seek leave to have meetings on Mondays or on Fridays, or whatever will be the most convenient for the most members of the committee.
Senator Murray: As a comment on Senator Di Nino's point, one assumes that all the times of the meetings, and so forth, will be revisited in a new Parliament. I would imagine we will follow, in which is expected to be a short session, the practice that we had in the second session.
Do you know, Madam Chairman, what business we may expect before this committee?
The Chairman: I expect we will begin immediately to look at the code of conduct; we may get the reincarnation of Bill C-34 back before us. Senator Gauthier has already given notice about the proceedings that the Senate follows the rules about petitions. We will undoubtedly get that before us as well.
Senator Murray: Those are the only two?
The Chairman: At this point, yes.
Senator Gauthier: I hesitate to bring this up, but several years ago this committee looked at the issue of petitions and tabled a report. There was no follow-up to it; prorogation occurred and the report was never acted upon. There are several good proposals in that report, the fourteenth report of this committee. I should like to know if you intend to look at that report or if it is dead, because I will bring it back up if it is dead.
The Chairman: In the last session, Senator Gauthier, you brought it back up. I intend to bring it back up because, once this committee has the time and does not have government legislation before it, which is the normal course of procedure in this committee, I believe we should revisit that report. I really do, because there are a lot of good things in it.
Senator Grafstein: Since I have some time, I would be asking for consideration of the question of executive privilege and the role of the courts as it relates to Parliament. Three things I wanted to bring to the committee's attention are two recent decisions of the courts compelling a minister of finance and a prime minister to attend at the courts to provide hearings or evidence with respect to policy done in Parliament. I think that is an invasion of executive privilege and, in fact, the rights of Parliament. In addition to that, the Law Reform Commission has just published a report that I think is flawed and I should like to have the committee look at that. It talks about the fact that the judges had not been overjudicious in dealing with parliamentary matters. I think they have. It is a personal view. I should like to have the committee look at that report and perhaps have the law reform commissioner who gave that report here so that we can try to strike a balance.
It is very hard to criticize the judiciary. I have done it myself with individual chief justices. For instance, when a Supreme Court justice, just a month ago, made a comment about public policy, I thought it was inappropriate and I immediately talked to the Chief Justice of Canada about that. She was surprised and I said, "That is your job. We have a job as well." From this committee at least, when we talk about rules, procedures and the rights of Parliament, we must reassert the fact that Parliament is a supreme legislator, notwithstanding the fact that the courts have a role to review the law pursuant to the Charter. I think they have gone too far on a number of occasions and I think it would be useful to at least explore the question. I do not intend extensive hearings. It can be done in a day or two, and then we can come to some conclusion. The committee may not share that conclusion, but I think it is an important issue and nobody else is covering it.
Senator Joyal: This is on a related issue, in a way. It deals with the Vaid case that this committee has been studying in the last months.
My question to my colleagues around the committee would be, in the other place, where a file is answered to the constitutional question that the Chief Justice decided upon on the December 2, is it in the interest of our colleagues to formally study the answer of the House of Commons and on that basis decide if the committee, since the committee is now in existence, should recommend or take a stand on this issue?
The Chairman: I will circulate that document to the members of the committee so that we can all have a look at it, and we will talk about it at our next meeting.
Senator Joyal: To my knowledge, and to the recollection of my colleagues, the decision of the Chief Justice was rendered on December 2. The House of Commons has 12 weeks to answer, which brings them to March 26. Today is February 4. By my reading of the calendar, the House of Commons still has four weeks left to file its answers. Following the lapsing of those four weeks, any person or institution that wants to seek to intervene has another four weeks to file its petition. In other words, we still have time to follow up on our interests in this committee.
The Chairman: Yes, since we spent a lot of time on it.
Senator Joyal: Since we laboured on it, if I can use that expression, I think it would be of interest to all of us to take knowledge of the content of the position that the House of Commons should file within the next four weeks and, of course, act according to what will be a consensus, if there is a consensus, among the members of the committee.
The Chairman: I will keep the committee informed and I will schedule this as soon as we possibly can to talk about it.
Senator Gauthier: There is Vaid, and there is also the Quigley case, involving the person from New Brunswick who complained to the Human Rights Commission about his not receiving the debates of the House of Commons in his official language, which was English. He won in the first instance and they appealed that; they won in the second in the Court of Appeal; and I am told that they will also appeal that decision on parliamentary privilege basis, the same as the Vaid case.
I am also complaining to the Human Rights Commission about four organizations, the House of Commons being one of the main ones, for their failure to offer subtitling to their proceedings. The Human Rights Commission has decided that I had a valid complaint and is setting up a tribunal. It is making some of them over there a little nervous, and some of you might not know the whole story behind this but I am going to pursue this until I think I can convince the authorities that not only the House of Commons but also the Senate should subtitle its broadcasting given to CPAC; otherwise, it will not make any sense. There are two and a half million Canadians who are like me, hard of hearing. I do not think it is fair or equal to have them not receive the debates of Parliament in both official languages, with accompanying captioning.
If you prefer, I could raise this at another time, but I feel some pressure right now, because I have been asked to drop my complaint and I will not drop it. I should like to explain that to you some day.
The Chairman: Yes. Thank you, Senator Gauthier. If there is no further business, I declare this meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned.