Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 7 - Evidence for February 23, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 23, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 4:18 p.m. for consideration of draft budgets.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We have today, on our agenda, the consideration of draft budgets, followed by an in camera meeting on the consideration of a draft agenda.
The first budget is the legislative budget of our committee for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006. The total amount requested would be — there was an error on the numbers — $72,320 instead of $72,820. A significant amount is reserved for meals, over $29,000, given that the committee meets during mealtime most of the time. Hence, the total request is not unusual in our case, given that we also have funds for outside legal counsel — $9,000 — given that some subjects require outside research support when we need to ask for support.
A small amount is also included for communication advice. Given the high-profile issues coming, it is prudent to seek outside assistance, to better promote our arguments. Also budgeted are funds to allow members to attend conferences — $25,320. It is not unusual to receive invitations to conferences related to our work; hence, senators should have the option to participate in some of them.
Senator Milne: I propose that pass the first budget.
The Chairman: Okay. I thought we would come back but it is all right.
Senator Eyton: Our history of budgeting is not very good. It is perhaps reflective of the Liberal government and budgets in surplus. The expenditures we have made, according to the information I have in front of me, are really a fraction often of the total budgeted amount. Therefore, the question is: Why has that happened in the past so regularly? We have never gone anywhere near the budgeted amount, and is that apt to happen again this year?
The Chairman: If we look at the 2003-04 budget, the expenditures approved at amounted to $74,657. However, because we did not sit much, we did not spend much money.
Senator Eyton: For five years, the committee has been doing the same thing. I am just curious as to why we are so far off the mark.
The Chairman: I just explained to you the amount of money that we have and the number of days that we will sit.
Senator Milne: There is also the matter of trying to prejudge in advance how much legislation we will get.
Senator Stratton: The argument is that there will be a huge competition for dollars coming down the track; if we could be a little more precise here, reducing and staying within that number, rather than asking for this, there will be more money available for that competition coming up.
Senator Ringuette: That is not what I have been hearing at other committees on which I am sitting. Everyone is budgeting for what they foresee will be their need, in order not to fall short at the end of the year, with major legislation and issues to be discussed, and research, and not having financial tools to do it.
Senator Stratton: Like the Finance Committee, this committee generally does not travel.
Senator Ringuette: I am on the Finance Committee; I know that.
The Chairman: I know this committee does not travel, but if committee members wish to attend conferences or seminars, they would have to travel.
Senator Eyton: I should be clear. I am not sure that I am really protesting, but it seems to me — and from what I see from these numbers — we are not going to spend the amount we budgeted yet again this year. That is what I think will happen, based on the record.
I will say that outside of government this kind of budgeting would be very severely criticized.
The Chairman: You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not think we are asking for too much money.
Senator Eyton: No, it is not too much; it is just that the budgeting is really bad.
The Chairman: I sent you the copy in advance, senator, as deputy chair, and I have not heard from you since.
Senator Ringuette: If you run a budget-restricted committee, you will be criticized; if you do not, you are applauded for respecting the budget that you got.
Senator Eyton: I am not voting against it; I just made the observation for the record. We have a record here.
The Chairman: I had not received your observations, after having sent you a copy. That is why I am surprised.
Senator Milne: I am just pointing out that, in 2000-01, as well as the next one, I chaired the committee and made a special effort to try to prejudge exactly how much legislation we would get. However, in those years, the only conferences we wanted to attend were being held here in Ottawa. Hence, no travel was connected with those conferences whatsoever.
The Chairman: We did not want to prevent members from attending conferences that could be important for the committee.
Senator Eyton: If it would make you feel better, I am happy to move that we approve this.
The Chairman: I am not here to be happy, senator; I am here to do my job.
Are you moving, Senator Eyton?
Senator Eyton: Yes.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Anyone against? No.
The second budget would be the study on the inclusion of non-derogation clauses in legislation. We already have our order of reference from the Senate. This is a small budget — $14,000 to cover expenses for working meals.
The committee began its work in a previous session and because of the legislative workload it has been unable to resume it. As a result, we should discuss the possibility of referring the issue to a subcommittee. We have already discussed that here at the committee level — in the event we are again overtaken by legislation. I would suggest that perhaps we could discuss the non-derogation study after the budgets.
Senator Sibbeston: I am one of those who wanted to do the study on non-derogation, so I am pleased that there is a small budget for that. If there is no further discussion, I move this item.
The Chairman: Are we all agreed on the budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cools: I agree on the budget. However, I just noticed that the motion — I suppose it was adopted — says, as follows:
That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject and the work accomplished during the Second Session...be referred to the Committee...
A lot of people are doing that. However, the only way the chamber can refer something to committee is if they had it, so a report would have had to have been made previously. Maybe that was done, I do not know.
They are doing it. It does not mean it is right, but they are doing it all the time. The Senate can only send to the committee what the Senate has. If the Senate never received the stuff before — this is why whenever we are about to prorogue it is important for committees to put in even interim reports even if the study is incomplete.
The Chairman: There was none.
Senator Cools: For the future, you should. At least the Senate will have received it, because they cannot refer what they do not have.
The Chairman: The third budget relates to the study on declaring Ottawa to be a bilingual city. The budget is small, to cover working meals and communication advice if necessary. This is the result of the motion adopted by the Senate on December 2, 2004. I think we have to prepare a budget for that, too.
Senator Milne: So moved.
The Chairman: Agreed, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will continue in camera.
The committee continued in camera.