Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence for February 26, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 10:36 a.m. to consider a draft budget.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: The first thing I should do is apologize. At our last meeting, I took it for granted that our meeting time would be as it has been since God was a pup, 10:35 a.m. on Thursday mornings, but it has apparently changed. Our standard spot now is 10:30 a.m. To the extent that I misled any of you, I apologize. I was not consulted about this particular change in time.
However, I believe it was initially set at 10:45 a.m. to allow people who had committees finishing at 10:30 a.m. to get here on time. That is not a problem anymore because the earlier committees have also been shoved back; they are supposed to finish at 10 o'clock now, which gives them ample time to get here by 10:30 a.m.
Let me ask you something before we get into the main business of what we are about. The sitting time is now scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. and to conclude at 12:30 p.m. Colleagues who sat on this committee before, which is most of you, will recall that quite often, witnesses who appear on Thursday morning are running a little longer than that. Although one tries to stay within the two-hour limit, sometimes it is, by common agreement, desirable to run beyond that. Would you like me to check with the whips whether we would be able to do that, without getting permission to do that each time?
Senator Milne: Yes, please.
The Chair: Senator Baker, did I see you waving?
Senator Baker: This is somewhat on point. I would hope that we would select times in which we would have a televised room.
The Chair: We do. This room has now been equipped. There are cameras on those beige boxes.
Senator Baker: Excellent. That is tremendous. That means all of our committee meetings will be taped by CPAC.
The Chair: It does not necessarily mean all of them will. For example, in camera meetings will not. The steering committee had asked the clerk to double-check about the organization of cameras. Even though the cameras are here, they are not automatically supplied with a crew. Therefore, we would still be engaged in some competition with other committees to have the crew.
Senator Baker: There is no doubt about that.
The Chair: That said, we are well down the road.
Senator Baker: The most important things that happen on Parliament Hill happen on this committee, and it is unfortunate that it is not televised when we have before us extraordinary guests of national renown. Now there is no excuse for CPAC.
The Chair: We will tell CPAC.
Does anyone else have any other comparable item of small business they want to raise before we move to regular business?
Senator Nolin: Will you seek the approval from the two whips regarding the time slot?
The Chair: Yes. I would suggest that we bump up our authorization to sit until 1:15 p.m. Most times we would not; most times the two-hour time limit is enough. However, sometimes we want more time with witnesses, particularly if we have some of the extremely interesting witnesses that Senator Baker is talking about. Since we simply go to the Senate after this committee anyway, it is not usual that people have a conflict. There are no other committee conflicts at that time. Senators are not usually running to catch a plane.
Senator Milne: I wish to point out that we sometimes have ministers come on Thursday morning, too, and they may not be available in that two-hour time slot. They may want to overlap a little at the latter end.
The Chair: Good point. I will approach the whips on that basis, if that suits you all.
Senator Bryden: I assume that means we will normally stay within our time frame. The things spoken of will be exceptional situations. I do not know, because I did not think to check when the end normally is. I am on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, as is Senator Wallace, and if they moved everything, we would actually sit until 10:30, I believe.
Senator Wallace: Yes.
Senator Bryden: I think so. It is 8:30 to 10:30.
The Chair: That is a joint committee, is it not?
Senator Bryden: Yes. You will have to give us special dispensation if we are late.
The Chair: Staffers say the times were changed to 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. to give senators half an hour to move between meetings. They believe that is true for the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations as well, but we will get the calendar.
Senator Nolin: We were told we were trying to build half an hour into the calendar.
Senator Bryden: Our start time would be 8 a.m. I might as well be back on the farm, milking the cows.
The Chair: Colleagues, I believe you have before you a document that is a budget for legislation. It is to cover our normal work of examining legislation in the fiscal year that will begin on April 1. As you can see, it is for a very modest amount: $47,350. This is one of the most economical committees in the Senate.
Does anyone have any questions?
Senator Joyal: Is that amount more or less within the range that this committee spends on a yearly basis?
The Chair: Do we have the previous year's budget? I have it. It looks as though we are coming in a little lower than what was approved. However, as you will see, we very rarely end up spending anywhere near what we have budgeted for. Therefore, it seems to me that what we are asking for is still more than we have normally spent, and so we are being approved.
Senator Rivest: It is less than last year.
The Chair: We are asking for less than last year. However, if you look at what we actually spent last year, we will have trouble keeping it down that far. We hope to sit more this year than we did last year.
Senator Watt: Is that a one-month period?
The Chair: No, it represents the whole year beginning on April 1.
Senator Watt: I see it now: Year 2010.
The Chair: All committees are operating on emergency funds until the end of this fiscal year.
Senator Watt: Did you say we have always spent a lot less than that?
The Chair: Last year we spent a little under $8,000.
Senator Baker: I notice the legal fees are Attorney General rates, which is very good. They are not legal aid rates.
The Chair: Colleagues, the legal fees are incorporated in the event we do wish to engage outside legal counsel for a particularly complicated topic. That is not automatically done, but it can be done. Again, for the sake of prudence, we budget to be able to do it without returning to Internal Economy Committee and receiving another authorization, should we wish.
Could I have a motion to approve this budget?
It is moved by Senator Nolin, seconded by Senator Milne.
Are all in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Are any opposed? Are there abstentions? It is carried.
We have another one, which is the budget for only $2,700. This is for the study that we will be talking about in a few minutes: the review of the amendments to the National Defence Act that were passed a year ago. We do not expect that study to last enormously long, so it basically consists of meals — lunches and dinners — and a little safety belt there of $200 miscellaneous, which we may well not spend.
Are there any questions? Could I have a motion?
It is moved by Senator Watt, seconded by Senator Nolin.
Are all in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Are any opposed? Are there abstentions? It is carried.
Before we go in camera, it is a useful practice in a number of committees that we address the question by way of motion of the number of people who are allowed to be in a room during an in camera session. Some senators feel quite strongly that this is a matter that should be handled by a motion. Indeed, if it has been handled by a motion, then there is no argument possible down the road.
I do not think today's in camera session will be very controversial but some in camera sessions might be.
The standard motion that I would suggest, which I have consulted with the steering committee members about, is a motion to the effect that each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings, unless there is a decision for a particular meeting to exclude all staff.
Is there any discussion? Would someone like to move such a motion?
Senator Nolin so moves.
Senator Bryden: In a situation where, for example, a senator is not able to make it to the meeting for whatever reason, that senator's assistant, at least prior to now, was able to attend.
The Chair: On the terms of this motion, that person would be able to. It does not say that each committee member present be allowed to have one staff person. It says ``each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at the meeting.''
Senator Bryden: Sometimes it is important to have the continuity of having someone who knows what happened before. Will that still take place?
The Chair: Yes. The normal complement of Senate staff — interpreters, reporters, clerks and pages — that we depend on would still be present.
[Translation]
Moved by Senator Nolin that the motion be adopted. In favour? Opposed? Abstentions?
[English]
Carried.
I now propose that we move to an in camera session.
(The committee continued in camera.)