Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 1, Evidence - November 7, 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 7, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to rule 12- 13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see that we have a quorum. As clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair, and I'm ready to receive nominations to that effect.
Senator Baker: I nominate Senator Runciman to the position of chair.
Ms. Anwar: Are there any other nominations?
Senator Joyal: I move that nominations be closed.
Ms. Anwar: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Baker that the Honourable Senator Runciman do take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Anwar: I declare the motion carried.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you all. I think we have a few new members on the committee this session. I have had the opportunity to sit on most of the committees in the Senate in the brief time I've been a senator, and I think that you're going to find this — in my view, anyway — perhaps the most interesting committee to serve on. We deal with some extremely controversial issues, issues that are of great import and interest to the majority of Canadians.
I'm looking forward to working with all of you for the next few months and perhaps, who knows, years. It depends on how long the Senate lasts, right?
I'm now going to preside over the election of a deputy chair. I'm ready to receive nominations to that effect. Are there any nominations?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I nominate my mentor, Senator Baker, as deputy chair of the committee.
[English]
The Chair: It has been moved by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu that the Honourable Senator Baker be deputy chair of the committee. Are we in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Do you wish to make any comments, Senator Baker?
Senator Baker: No, Mr. Chair, but I'm wondering if you have any news as far as possible business of the committee is concerned. Could you mention it to us before this meeting concludes, if you can?
The Chair: I will do that.
The next motion deals with the creation of a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, and we usually refer to that as the steering committee. I guess you have the motion in front of you, but I'll read it for the record:
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.
Would someone move that, please?
Senator Joyal: So moved.
The Chair: Discussion? Questions? Comments? Hearing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
I should point out that Senator Boisvenu has agreed to be the other member of the steering committee. He's done it for a number of years now and is a true asset to the considerations that the committee undertakes.
Moving on to the next motion, which allows us to publish the committee's proceedings, I would ask for a mover.
Senator Plett: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by the Honourable Senator Plett that the committee publish its proceedings. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
The next motion is the authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present. This motion allows the committee to hear evidence with a reduced quorum. We can't move a motion or make any decisions or votes until quorum is present, but it allows us to hear evidence in those kinds of situations that occasionally crop up.
Does anyone have any difficulty with that? If not, could we have a mover? Senator Dagenais has moved that.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Number 7, the next motion, deals with research staff. I will read that motion as well:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
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.
I require a mover.
Senator McIntyre: I so move.
The Chair: Discussion? Seeing none, is it your wish, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
I take this opportunity to introduce the three analysts that have been assigned from the Library of Parliament: Laura Barnett, Caroline Sauvé, and Sandra Gruescu. I invite them to join us. We will circulate CVs to all members so they know their backgrounds.
Welcome, we appreciate you joining us.
We will move on to Motion No. 8, which grants authority to commit funds and certify accounts. I will read the motion into the record:
That, pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
Can I have a mover of that motion? Senator Boisvenu. Any discussion? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Number 9 deals with travel. The motion reads:
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.
Do we have a mover of that motion? Senator Plett moves that motion. Discussion? Seeing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 10 is the designation of members travelling on committee business. The motion reads:
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 an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
Could I have a mover? Senator Batters moves the motion. Questions? Concerns? Seeing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
We now move to a motion regarding the travelling and living expenses of witnesses. The motion reads:
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.
We apparently have details related to this issue if you have any questions or concerns. Those details for the last session are contained in the committee's rule 12-26 report that will be circulated at the next committee meeting.
Could we have a mover of that motion? Senator Rivest has moved the motion. Questions?
Senator Rivest: What is a reasonable expense?
The Chair: I will refer that to the clerk.
Ms. Anwar: We have used it in the past.
The Chair: We understand the context of the question.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Next is a motion dealing with communications:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct communications officer(s) assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate for the purposes of their development and implementation; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to permit coverage by electronic media of the committee's public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings at its discretion.
As committee members know, we do not have a communications officer assigned to the committee on a full-time basis at the moment, so until further notice, the committee will continue to look for assistance on a case-by-case basis. It's something that the subcommittee can look at in the future as well.
Senator Dagenais, did you wish to move the motion?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to make a comment first. As you mentioned, the committee deals with important files and as we all know, even in our government's plan, legal affairs are important.
I understand that there is no director of communications, but regarding the decisions our committee makes, did we not at one point consider using the services of a communications specialist to communicate the work of our committee? Because our files have a particular impact on society, whether we are dealing with issues concerning sexual predators, the contraband of cigarettes, or all of the other matters we have dealt with.
[English]
The Chair: I wasn't sure of your question. What we have done in the past is we have left it up to steering to make a recommendation depending on the basis of legislation or the business before the committee, whether it's appropriate, whether we feel it's a required need, and then we act it on that basis, rather than having someone assigned on a full- time basis. We try to assess it on a going-forward basis. That's fine? Any other questions?
Could I have a mover for this? I don't have a mover at the moment. Senator Joyal has moved the motion. Any further discussion? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
For your information, the time slots for the regular meetings are Wednesdays at 4:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m., and Thursdays at 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. As a rule we always meet in this room. If there is a change, obviously you will be notified.
In the past we have adopted a motion to authorize the chair and the deputy to seek the permission of the whips to extend the Thursday meeting time to 1:15 p.m. That's what we did in the last session, so if no one has any problem with that, I would like to propose a motion that the chair and the deputy chair seek the permission of the whips for the committee to extend its sitting time on Thursdays to 1:15.
Anyone prepared to move that? Not enthusiastically. Senator Plett has moved it. Any questions or concerns about that? We play it by ear. If we feel it's necessary, then we will have the authority to do so. So moved by Senator Plett. Can you indicate your interest in adopting the motion. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Motion carried.
Our final item, other than adjournment, is other business. We could move in camera if you wish, but I don't see the need for that. If something pops up — if a Senator wants to raise an issue — we can move in camera to deal with it, but I don't think it is necessary at the moment.
As Senator Baker suggested, we have had a referral to the committee with a deadline reporting date. These declaratory provisions to the Supreme Court Act clarify — they don't make changes to the law — the existing law that individuals with at least 10 years with the Quebec bar at any time during their career are eligible to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada as a Quebec member. Obviously, we're all familiar with the controversy surrounding that issue, so we've been asked to deal with it and with limited time.
Perhaps we can have a brief discussion now. If anyone has suggestions, I'm hoping we can have a brief steering committee after this meeting to try to give some direction to staff with respect to potential witnesses, looking at the time line. We've asked library research to provide us with some suggestions along those lines. Hopefully, you're open to a brief discussion right now to give us some direction.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: What are we being asked to reflect on, exactly? Is this matter before the Supreme Court currently, or will our committee be studying it?
[English]
The Chair: This is a declaration, as I said. It's a declaratory provision. We're going to listen to the case pro and con with respect to eligible criteria. At the end of the day, we may wish to express a view related to this, but it's not an up or down issue for us. At some point, in my view anyway, we will be taking a position with respect to the clarity of that provision; so we'll be hearing pros and cons. I'm sure we had some expression from the Government of Quebec as well early on that they don't believe this is the correct interpretation. I think that's the question we'll be dealing with.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: To reply to Senator Boisvenu's question, there is a reference before the Supreme Court of Canada by the government, that is supposed to be heard mid-January. The Canadian government has asked the Supreme Court a specific question on the legality of Judge Nadon's nomination. Of course the parties involved, among them the Government of Quebec, are busy preparing their factums.
To reply to your question, there is a reference before the Supreme Court of Canada which is supposed to be heard as a priority in mid-January. The bill in question is an amendment to the Supreme Court Act. We are not being invited to comment on the nature of the reference, since both topics overlap.
[English]
Senator Batters: I was going to add that perhaps the particular provisions are part of the budget implementation bill. Maybe we're being asked to look at those particular provisions.
The Chair: We are. A number of other provisions are referred to other Senate committees as well. It was embodied in the same motion.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: I would like to see our committee, or even the Senate, despite the reference to the Supreme Court, take an interest in this question, since the Senate exists precisely to protect a certain number of constitutional rights and prerogatives granted to regions. Of course, the institution of the Supreme Court is of primary concern to us. There is a provision that attributes three justices of the Supreme Court to Quebec. This provision regarding the Supreme Court is unique. It does not apply to other provinces, but it is guaranteed by civil law and historical precedent.
I would like our committee, and perhaps the Senate as well, to express its opinion publicly on this matter, because it is very important. There is some ambiguity regarding the nomination proposed by the government, and it is debatable. If we went forward, the Government of Quebec, which is the primary spokesperson for the interests of Quebec within the Canadian federation, would have to attend our meetings if we heard witnesses. The Quebec Bar would also have to be present. These are the two organizations that are most likely to express an opinion. I would not suggest that we do this ad infinitum, because everyone has an opinion on this matter. However, I would like us to do this quickly, in a circumscribed manner, and I would like us to express our opinion, while letting the legal process unfold in the normal manner. As an institution, I think that the Senate has to take a position, given that these are constitutional and legislative rights that are guaranteed to a particular region of Canada, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Joyal: I may have one or two suggestions of law professors who have already expressed their views in written form so we know the substance of their opinions. I might suggest them to the subcommittee today or tomorrow at the latest so that you will be in a position to invite them. As you know, most of those people are teaching or involved in other professional responsibilities. We have to give them notice ahead of time so they could suggest to us when they would be available.
The Chair: All right. Good. Thank you.
Well, we can leave it at that. The steering committee will be looking at the list provided, as well by the Library of Parliament. The clerk will circulate background information to you as quickly as possible so that you're up to speed before we start the process upon return.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Since we are on leave next week, would it be advisable to hold a meeting of the steering committee so that we can draw up a list of witnesses and be ready when we return?
[English]
The Chair: Yes. I had hoped that we could meet briefly after this meeting.
The clerk has asked me to point out with respect to the distribution of documents received in French only or English only when submitted by private citizens or organizations that the translations will follow as soon as possible. I want you to appreciate it's only initially receiving documents as a rule in both official languages when they're from government departments. You have to understand that there could be a little delay with respect to getting the other language before you.
Is there any discussion related to future business, special studies or other business to raise at this point? Nothing? Then we shall conclude.
(The committee adjourned.)